





o N O 


U »n ^ 

A° ^ * 

*0* **VL% *> 

\p -vagy- ^ * 



° ^ * 

/ <A <^ *^-v o. 

A „ « • *„ ^ <y *> 

— . v / .*- - 
' '**'? • 

c5 ^(\ ' ' ^« A^'^C. o ^ * 

^ . -V * * ♦ 






t ' S 


^. -*" G* r "'"y.T'’ A 

’ ** c° .‘J^> °o 4** yjrvl* *+ c 0 ' • 

* :4§i2fc ^ -W •« 

• 4 o ~ # \0 -r, 

o -a? > v & * 

% k> * ^zyy/Wjgf ± A * ^vi\\\n>s> • \ ^ 

.°’ A* ®*. *•>'* A 0 ^ •*• <*^ 4* 

> f • o *£\ QV ^ 9 • • , ^ y> m f » © - 





5 

^> *'T.T‘ A < -<,.. .. 

% V, / . •»-, \ c° 

. -of *- «« 


n a 



;. *fe v" . < 

?*/ v»-y v 

<<T ,*V'* *> V N • • • •- y *ww * > 

<4> / ySgV . ^ V* ,>Va' %. / .‘dfe*. 

f ’JiPlIr v^ 'mmZ s°. j'v 


O 


.o^ .--•. ' v - 



- > 0° 

* ^ 4 ' 

v - V- q' 0 < 

* 4 0 * - 

. % hT' * 

* <j r o 

A -> o„o* O 

^ aO^ tVV;* ^ ^ 

• •■«%-. w • v 


1 A« 

f f i # A° 


v/\ 

a ' < . ‘ • o 

/ .v^- % / . 

**oA * 




^5 ♦'TvT* a 

.»■•« ^o vt> 

° aS 4 
»>* A *■ 

• O > 



* iO-/, 

.' h +± •. 





9 i ^ 




* - 4 - A v < 

' Ox v • 


•*•*' ** % * 
f »_ * C 

s 

• ^v 1 

4 - -Naeynggy * 

■...* .o* V a 

,^ t A** ^ f CT »•!•♦ ^o a* N . *'•, 

N * jg’tflTTPzJ rr 0 • cfS^W - O J ® 1 4 

A. 0 < i^mX- •>-, .v 




: ** 

• o A^a*V J) 

* % *•■’* A° 

f • a ^ rv> 



"o V 


- ^ 



cm?; V V vCSfSr * <y <$> ° yj 

v> # '°*>** *G* ^ A <* **o . * ** A* 

<s> cr fc •«• «, A> . *'« <«> ^ o *« 

**L C •tcStavI* O > sLj 09 l+ * C° • 0 JW‘ I 


■- +* 0 t 


** ** A 


























































y 





/ 



4 








Spiritualism 

AND THE 

Catholic Church 


Being a Discussion 


WILL J. ERWOOD 

AND 

REV. F. J. FLANNAGAN 



Published by Will J. Erwood 

Author of “The Rational Life,” “The Living Thought,” 
“Lessons of Progress,” Etc. 





% 





COPYRIGHT. 1917 

BY WILL J. ERWOOD 

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 



GUARANTEE PRINTING CO. 
4041 LANCASTER AVE. 
PHILADELPHIA 


14 1917 




©Cl. A 4 73114 
Tto./* 


FOREWORD 


Early in June, 1911, the writer was in Wheeling, 
W. Va., to which city he had gone in response 
to the invitation of the Rev. Geo. W. Way and 
his band of earnest workers. During this stay a 
series of meetings were held in Wheeling and 
vicinity, in which the writer delivered the 
addresses and Rev. Way gave the spiritual 
messages. Among the points visited was Mounds- 
ville, W. Va., where two services were held in the 
School Auditorium, on the evenings of June 7 
and 8. 

Prior to these services, two of the Moundsville 
clergymen had made bold to attack Spiritualism, 
delivering “lectures” in which they attempted 
to show that Spiritualism was a detriment to 
humanity in general, and a product of the 
“Prince of Darkness” in particular. 

As a result of the reports of these “lectures” 
appearing in the local papers, thereby holding 
the subject up to ridicule by those who read, 
but did not know that there was another side to 
the question, there was, naturally, considerable 
displeasure on the part of the earnest Spiritualists 
of Moundsville and vicinity. The Spiritualists 
were therefore very anxious that a series of 


4 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

meetings be held in order that the public might 
have a chance to hear the other side, and 
arrangements were made for the services alluded 
to. The gentlemen who had charge of the 
arrangements caused to be printed in the 
announcement the following clause: 

“Those in charge cordially invite all to attend, 
especially ministers, and desire especially that 
Dr. Riker and Father Flannagan attend and ask 
questions, as they recently delivered lectures on 
Spiritualism.” 

It is needless to say that neither of the gentle¬ 
men referred to attended. Dr. Riker remained 
silent, but Father Flannagan, with the bellig¬ 
erency which his name would indicate, construed 
the notice as a challenge; and in consequence, 
the good father sent a series of questions to the 
Moundsville Echo, which he prefaced as follows: 

“In your issue of the 4th inst, you published 
an announcement that appears from one view to 
be an invitation to discuss Spiritism,” and 
requested those in charge of the Spiritualist 
lecture to answer thru the same columns. 

Of course the questions were answered. The 
discussion was extended over a period of weeks, 
with many delays, owing to the fact that the 
writer was in and out of Wheeling in persuance 
of the work that called him there. But the 
letters were all answered, and nothing but the 
greatest courtesy was accorded the writer by the 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 5 

publishers of the Echo . There was but one 
point in which the writer was at a disadvantage, 
and that was owing to distance he did not get 
the news as quickly as Father Flannagan, and 
therefore did not know in advance when the 
discussion was to be closed by the Echo. 

The discussion caused much interest, and I 
believe it was a most excellent thing from every 
point of view. Many requests have been made 
that the subject matter be put out in book form 
and this the writer agreed to do. Labor of many 
kinds have delayed this, until the present hour. 
Then, too, the writer had intended to write much 
more and add to that which is here presented, 
but when the old scrap book was gotten out and 
the material made ready for the printer, it was 
found the volume would be sufficiently large as 
it was, without adding more to make it cum¬ 
bersome and unwieldy. 

Much data has been gathered which would 
splendidly supplement this volume—in fact so 
much that it would make another book as large, 
if not larger, than the present publication. To 
do the work that such data will accomplish, the 
writer here agrees to get the material ready for, 
and publish another book supplementing this, in 
the interest of education and liberal religion. 

In sending this book forth there is no desire 
to arouse religious animosity or dissention; nor 
is there any wish to antagonize or attack any 


6 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

church, Catholic or otherwise. It is prompted 
by the desire to let both sides of the discussion 
be freely heard; by the further wish to promote 
rational free speech, and provide reasonable 
defense of a religion which numbers among its 
adherents some of the best and most brilliant 
men and women in the world. And, still further, 
by the desire to show to the world that the 
time has come when one religionist can no longer 
assail the dearest convictions of another and 
remain unanswered. 

Wiu, J. Erwood. 


Philadelphia, Pa., June, 1917. 


Spiritualist Lecture 

Rev. Erwood will give a lecture at 
the Victoria Theater, Wheeling, Sunday 
afternoon, June 4, at 2 o’clock, on 
“Foregleams of Immortality; or, What 
Becomes of the Dead.” 

The same subject will be discussed at 
Moundsville in one of his lectures. He 
will lecture in the school hall on June 7 
and 8, and Rev. Way, of Wheeling will 
follow each lecture with spirit messages. 

Those in charge cordially invite all to 
attend, especially ministers, and desire 
especially that Rev. Father Flanagan 
and Dr. Riker attend and ask questions, 
as they recently delivered lectures on 
Spiritualism. 



Questions on Spiritism 

In Answer to Recent Invitation 

To the Editor of the “Echo.” 

Dear Sir: 

In your issue of the 4th inst. you 
published an announcement that appears, 
from one view, to be an invitation to 
discuss Spiritism. The last paragraph of 
the article is as follows: “Those in charge 
cordially invite all to attend, especially 
ministers, and desire especially that Rev. 
Father Flanagan and Dr. Riker attend 
and ask questions, as they recently 
delivered lectures on Spiritualism.” 

It is true I recently delivered a lecture 
on Spiritism. A synopsis of my address 
appeared in the daily papers. I gave a 
general outline of the whole subject, and 
proved that Spiritism is identified with 
the old magic and the necromancy of 
olden times. I maintained that much of 
the phenomena of Spiritism cannot have 


10 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

any adequate cause in man, but only in 
spirits distinct from the souls of all those 
visibly present on such occasions. I also 
said that neither God nor His angels, 
nor the souls in heaven, could be expected 
to put themselves at the disposal of the 
mediums to satisfy a morbid curiosity; 
and, therefore, the reasonable conclusion 
was that the evil spirits or demons, are 
the agents of all such effects in Spiritism 
which cannot be attributed to human 
powers. 

Now, Mr. Editor, if those in charge of 
the Spiritualist lecture, announced in your 
paper, are in a position to answer the 
following questions let them do so through 
your columns. 

QUESTIONS 

1.—If it is really true, that the souls 
of our departed friends manifest them¬ 
selves in the singular ways, in which the 
Spiritists say they do, how is it that 
Spiritism has never served to enlighten 
us on intricate historical questions, to 
settle some question of language, to 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 11 


solve some scientific problem, to recognize 
unknown maladies, or to reveal special 
remedies? 

2. —If Spiritism is a blessing to man¬ 
kind, why does the practice of it produce 
in the persons of the mediums, a deaden¬ 
ing or morbid exaggeration of the mental 
faculties, and cause the most serious of 
organic nervous diseases? 

3. —Spiritists themselves admit that 
the practice of Spiritism is fraught with 
many dangers to the sensitive, because 
of the intervention of malicious and 
spiteful spirits. How can mediums and 
sitters ever be safe against the interven¬ 
tion and actions of these malicious and 
spiteful spirits? 

4. —If Spiritism is helpful to us, how 
do you explain the fact that the majority 
of the most famous mediums, and not a 
few who have been assiduous cultivators 
of Spiritistic practices, have died insane, 
neurotic, or committed suicide? 

5. —If the spirits of our departed are 
interested in our welfare, and if they 
really communicate with us in the Spirit- 


12 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 


istic seance, why do they find pleasure 
in playing silly and foolish tricks on us? 

6. —Is it not a serious flaw in your 
Spiritistic creed and philosophy that even 
the highest orders of spirits differ, and 
that hopelessly, in their descriptions of 
the conditions in the other world? 

7. —Why is there such inconsistencies, 
incoherencies, and contradictions in a 
communicating spirit’s account of him¬ 
self? 

8. —Why so much oblivion and error 
about things which it seems inconceiv¬ 
able that the real spirit, supposed to be 
communicating, should have forgotten or 
be mistaken about? 

9. —Why is it so difficult, as is well 
known by all experienced experimenters, 
to establish the identity of the manifest¬ 
ing intelligences? 

10. —Why do we meet with Newmans 
who cannot mention a single title of the 
books they have written? Why do we 
find Shakespeares and Newtons who have 
become, in the spheres of the spirits, 
hopeless idiots and imbeciles? 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 13 

11.—Is not your Spiritistic creed utterly 
and wholly incompatible with, and mani¬ 
festly antagonistic to, the teaching of 
Holy Scripture and the doctrine of the 
divinity of Jesus Christ? 

F. J. Flanagan. 






















































































































































■ 








Answers to Questions on 
Spiritualism 

Without entering into the discussion in any other way 
or to any greater extent, the Echo submits this in explana¬ 
tion: Mr. Erwood is evidently not informed as to why 
R ev ; Father Flanagan submitted the “Questions on 
Spiritism.” They were written in reply to an invitation 
or request from the gentleman who arranged for Mr. 
Erwood’s recent lectures in Moundsville, which request 
or invitation, as one may choose to call it, was handed 
the Echo in writing and published. Therefore Rev. 
Flanagan replied in like manner.— Editor “Echo.” 

To the Editor of the “Echo,” 
Moundsville, W. Va. 

Dear Sir: 

My attention has been called to the 
articles: “Questions on Spiritism” over 
the signature of Father F. A. Flanagan, 
and the synopsis of his lecture on “Spirit¬ 
ualism,” appearing in recent issues of 
your paper. 

Inasmuch as you have given him the 
opportunity of expressing himself through 
the Echo, I feel assured you will not 
hesitate to grant me sufficient space in 


16 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 


which to make brief reply. On general 
principles I am opposed to religious 
discussions; this from the fact that they 
usually do no more than inflame the 
minds of the ignorant and intolerant. 
And I always feel it a departure from 
the avocation and dignity of the real 
minister when a deliberate attack is 
made upon the religion of another. There 
is work nearer home for the clergy. 

In reading the preamble to Father 
Flanagan’s “Questions,” and the report 
of his lecture on Spiritualism it is quite 
apparent to me that his personal experi¬ 
ence with Spiritualism, as far as its 
phenomena and its philosophy are con¬ 
cerned, must be very limited — very 
meagre to say the least. 

Father Flanagan says: “ * * * neither 
God nor His angels, nor the souls in 
heaven, could be expected to put them¬ 
selves at the disposal of the mediums to 
satisfy morbid curiosity.” This one quo¬ 
tation is quite sufficient to show how 
widely he has missed the essence of the 
philosophy of Spiritualism. Spiritualists 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 17 


at no time claim that God, His angels, 
nor yet the souls of the departed are at 
the disposal of mediums. If he knows 
aught of our position he must know that 
we are emphatic in the statement that 
the medium has no power to compel the 
return of any soul. 

Furthermore, if there is one thing that 
is more abhorrent, to the real Spiritualist, 
than another, it is morbidity, idle curi¬ 
osity, or a flippant, irreverent attitude 
toward, or approach to, intercommunion 
between the discarnate and the human 
on earth. 

Father Flanagan presumes much when 
he tells us what God and His angels, or 
the souls in heaven “could be expected 
to do.” This particularly when his own 
theology has taught him and his parish¬ 
ioners to expect so much from God, His 
angels and souls in heaven. One has but 
to read the many works anent the lives 
of the Saints, or the evolution of the 
Catholic Church and her work, to dis¬ 
cover what an important part has been 
played—in the opinion of the teachers 


18 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

and adherents of Catholicism—by God, 
His angels, the souls in heaven, and even 
those in purgatory. 

Not only do they—the Catholics— 
believe in the marvelous stories of mir¬ 
acles in the lives of ancient members of 
the church, but they believe that these 
things obtain today. The dead are not 
wholly separated from the living; de¬ 
parted mothers and fathers may admin¬ 
ister to their loved on earth. As a 
witness to this we h^ve the Calendar, 
published for the diocese of Wheeling, 
the issue for April, 1909. On page 2 of 
this issue there is an account of Father 
Flanagan’s lecture on Spiritualism, de¬ 
livered at Huntington * * *—delivered 
also recently at Moundsville. 

In this lecture he tells his audience 
that Spiritualism may be defined as, 
communication with and consulting of 
the spirits of the departed,” etc. Yes, 
we believe in that, but that is but a 
small part of Spiritualism; there is an 
ethical side that is worthy the attention 
of the most enlightened. 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 19 


Turning from his lecture, in which he 
assures us that, “evil spirits or demons 
are the agents of all such effects in 
Spiritism which cannot be attributed to 
human power”—he forgot to inform his 
auditors that the word demon has a 
dual meaning—turning from this lecture 
to page 7 of the same issue of the 
Calendar , above mentioned, we are 
greeted by this interesting caption: “A 
Mother's Love That Ceased Not With 
Death." 

The story that follows, written by the 
pastor of “St. Michael’s’’—name of city 
not given—tells of the return of the 
deceased mother of a young man three 
years after her demise. And it concludes 
with these words: “Convinced was I 
that a mother’s interest, and a mother’s 
love ceased not with death.” 

Father Flanagan, that is precisely what 
is taught by Spiritualism. The priest who 
wrote the item very evidently believes in 
the return of the departed; and the 
history of the Catholic Church is teeming 
with similar incidents. All good Catho- 


20 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 


lies believe in such occurrences. Are we 
to conclude that the love of a Catholic 
mother is more earnest and devoted than 
that of a Spiritualist mother? That her 
interest in her children is greater? 

Father Flanagan says: “I proved that 
Spiritism is identified with the old magic 
and the necromancy of olden times.”—I 
abridge for want of space—he did not 
prove anything of the kind. He merely 
proved that he made use of certain 
texts, opinions, prejudices, etc., to dis¬ 
courage his people from investigating 
this subject. He well knows that if he 
wished to impress them with the truth 
and probability of a mother's return—as 
per account in the Calendar —he could 
very easily turn to the same Scripture 
and find convenient texts with which 
to do so. 

He knows, too, that he could prove 
that some of those demons, of which he 
speaks so glibly, were wise, beneficent 
and good. This because he knows the 
term has been used for centuries to 
signify “the spirit of a dead man, either 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 21 


good or bad.” Then, too, he might have 
defined necromancy and given his people 
to understand its significance. 

As for the questions Father Flanagan 
has propounded. They sound like the old 
“Can any good come out of Nazareth?” 
query. Were he familiar with the liter¬ 
ature of Spiritualism to any extent he 
would know of the mass of literature, 
which has grown up in the last half 
century, in which are statements which 
were ridiculed thirty years ago, but 
which are now recognized by the scien¬ 
tific world. Particularly is this true in 
psychological studies. Father Flanagan 
knows of the change in the psychology 
of today from that of a few years ago. 

As for healing, the curing and under¬ 
standing of diseases which have baffled 
the best physicians; there are countless 
numbers of cures affected by laying on 
of hands, psychic diagnosis and spirit 
ministration. They are almost daily 
occurrences. 

Then he speaks of ‘‘deadening or mor¬ 
bid exaggeration of the mental faculties 


22 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 


and organic nervous disease’’ as a result 
of “the practice of Spiritism.” I think 
Father Flanagan will yet find there are 
some who have been “Spiritists” for 
many years whose mental faculties are 
neither “deadened” nor “morbidly ex¬ 
aggerated.” This question is a joke, in 
view of the fact that I see before me 
in the Calendar an advertisement of 
“Father Koenig’s Nerve Tonic.” 

Of this remedy, for nerves , mind you, 
Father J. J. Riorden says—after talking 
about hard mission life bringing on “rest¬ 
lessness, nervousness, sleeplessness,” etc. 
—and you know, Father, restlessness, 
nervousness, sleeplessness, etc., are the 
roads that lead to suicide, insanity and 
its kindred ills. Father Riorden says: 
“There is no doubt Pastor Koenig’s 
Nerve Tonic is most valuable for all 
such cases, and my own experience gives 
the most infallible proof of it.” I would 
ask: if the practice of the rites and 
ceremonials of Catholicism be such a 
benefit why the need of Father Koenig’s 
Nerve Tonic? 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 23 


Yes, we admit that there is danger in 
the indiscriminate, thoughtless and reck¬ 
less accentuation of man’s psychic power. 
Why ? Because the irrational use of any¬ 
thing is dangerous. The extreme use— 
the unwise application of the most benef¬ 
icent power in the universe, is detri¬ 
mental to humanity. There are people 
who use everything else unwisely, why 
not the same here. 

How can medium and sitters be safe 
from evil spirits? That is very simple. 
Let them be sincere, honest, clean, rev¬ 
erent, earnest; let them take into their 
investigations that purity of thought 
which is ever a barrier to evil, in every 
clime, nation or creed. 

Father Flanagan says: “the majority 
of the most famous mediums and not a 
few assiduous cultivators of Spiritistic 
practices have died insane, neurotic, or 
have committed suicide.” He wisely 
refrains from mentioning the countless 
number who have not died from any of 
the above causes. And he is judging 
from a few isolated cases, and judging 


24 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 


in the same way we could prove that 
Catholicism was fraught with many grave 
dangers. 

In answer to his question let me say 
Spiritualists are human beings, liable to 
the same errors as others. And I have 
never known a case such as he speaks of 
where there has not been some vital 
abuse of physical or mental powers, but, 
quoting the words of Cardinal Gibbons, 
“the spots on the sun do not mar his 
brightness. The cockle that grows amidst 
the wheat does not destroy the beauty of 
the ripened harvest.” The things you 
mention, Father Flanagan, as you must 
know full well, are the accidents that 
attend the growth of all religious 
movements. 

Why do spirits play silly tricks on us. 
My own experience does not prove that 
they do. But supposing this is true at 
times, I would say it was due to the fact 
that there are so many silly people, who 
fail to appreciate the seriousness of soul 
communion, who approach this subject 
in a flippant manner and ask of discar- 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 25 


nate beings such silly questions that they 
attract those whose highest aim is levity. 
To the Spiritualist a message from a 
loved one who has departed this life is a 
hallowed experience, and venerated as 
such. 

Father Flanagan asks: “Is it not a 
serious flaw * * * that spirits differ 
* * * in their descriptions of the other 
world?” Not at all. There are dif¬ 
ferent stages of development, different 
temperaments and individuality to be 
taken into consideration. Would men 
returning from heaven, purgatory, hell, 
all describe the other world exactly alike? 
If different descriptions, interpretations 
were flaws, ours would not be the only 
system of religion that would suffer. 
There might be trouble nearer home, 
Father. 

The seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth 
questions may be answered by the fact 
that as yet we are in process of develop¬ 
ment, and that according to the unfold- 
ment of the media shall the communica¬ 
tions be clear and lucid, or otherwise. 


26 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 


No claim is made by Spiritualists or 
other earnest investigators that perfec¬ 
tion of methods of communication have 
been reached. Yet there have been 
sufficient to convince such men as Richet, 
Wallace, Crookes, Stead, Hyslop, James 
and countless men of scientific attain¬ 
ment, of the genuineness of spirit pheno¬ 
mena, and the identity of those commu¬ 
nicating. 

Difficulty in establishing identity is 
not a proof of the degeneration of the 
soul manifesting—it is evidence of the 
imperfection of the means of communica¬ 
tion, due at times to undue haste, to 
unnecessary eagerness and lack of devel¬ 
opment. 

And now we are asked: “Is not your 
Spiritistic creed wholly incompatible with 
and manifestly antagonistic to the teach¬ 
ing of Holy Scripture and the doctrine 
of the divinity of Jesus Christ ?” 

And to this I answer, absolutely no! 
Our philosophy is as consistent with 
Scripture as any now extant. The Scrip¬ 
ture teems with the account of the min- 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 27 

istration of men, spirits and angels. 
Indeed the phenomena of Spiritualism, 
the real spiritual phenomena which are 
so dear to us, are more a substantiation 
of the possibility of such phenomena as 
are recorded in the Bible, than they are 
incompatible. They prove a claim long 
made by your church, better than any 
other one thing, i. e. y the unchangeable¬ 
ness of the Infinite. 

As for the doctrine of the Divinity of 
Jesus, we differ on that point. We do 
not deny the divinity of Jesus—we object 
to the version that your theology gives 
to the world. And we object to it on the 
grounds of incompatibility, inconsistency, 
unnaturalness, and its being in contra¬ 
distinction to natural law as manifested 
throughout the whole of life—the whole 
of nature. But the divinity of Jesus, 
and of Father Flanagan, and all human¬ 
ity, we cheerfully concede. 

I am well aware of the fact that Father 
Flanagan’s theology demands for itself 
the right to depart from the Scripture 
if need be. I know the Catholic Church 


28 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

holds that the Bible is not sufficient— 
that “there is no clear or methodical 
statement of the teaching of Christ pro¬ 
ceeding in regular sequence/' as stated 
by the Catholic Church, through its 
clergy—in this they are correct. Also I 
am aware that Christ wrote nothing, 
that the Bible was not in its present 
form until hundreds of years after the 
transition of Jesus; and further that the 
New Testament was not written—not a 
word of it—until many years after his 
death and reported resurrection. 

Now let me close by saying one of 
the cardinal principles of The National 
Spiritualist Association is this: “We 
believe that the highest morality is con¬ 
tained in the Golden Rule: ‘Whatsoever 
ye would that others should do unto you, 
do ye also unto them.’” 

And in compliance with this spirit all 
we ask is that we be accorded the same 
privileges under the constitution of our 
country, and the laws of life, that flare 
desired by other denominations. And we 
suggest that the clergy, both Catholic 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 29 


and otherwise, keep their hands off— 
they have quite sufficient to do to keep 
their own people from insanity, organic 
nervous disorders, and the thousand and 
one things from which even churchmen 
suffer. 

Very truly yours, 

Wiu J. Erwood. 


« 







* 




I** 



























Father Flanagan Replies 
to Erwood Lecture 

Note. —The following letter from Rev. Flanagan was 
handed to the Echo Tuesday afternoon, before the letter 
of Mr. Erwood was published, but too late to be put in 
type for that day’s paper. —Editor “Echo.” 

To the Editor of the “Echo,” 

Dear Sir: 

May I ask the kind hospitality of your 
paper, to correct some erroneous impres¬ 
sions, relative to the teachings of the 
Catholic Church and Spiritism, which the 
recent lecture on “ Spiritualism ” delivered 
by Rev. Erwood, is calculated to produce. 

The immediate occasion of my discuss¬ 
ing Spiritism through your columns, was 
the appearance in your issue of the 4th 
inst. of an invitation or kind of challenge 
to me from those in charge of a “Spirit¬ 
ualistic lecture” to ask questions about 
Spiritism. I responded. I asked eleven 
questions relative to Spiritism. 

In a subsequent issue of the Echo , Rev. 


32 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 


Erwood promised to answer my ques¬ 
tions, in the school hall, last Thursday 
evening. The people who went to hear 
Rev. Erwood had a right to expect that 
he would answer the questions as he had 
advertised to do so. He answered not; 
and his failure to keep his promise caused 
no little surprise. His only answer was: 
“I am not ready for the questions that 
appeared in one of your local papers, but 
will answer them later.” I waited several 
days, before sending you this exposure 
of Rev. Erwood’s peculiar controversial 
methods, thinking that he would make 
some attempt to answer my questions. 
I have waited in vain. 

The main purpose of Rev. Erwood’s 
lecture was, seemingly, to prove that 
the claims of the Spiritists, and the 
teachings of the Catholic Church regard¬ 
ing spirits, are the same. In support of 
this contention he read passages from a 
book written by Rev. Father Gmeiner, 
called “The Spirits of Darkness and their 
Manifestations on Earth; or, Ancient and 
Modern Spiritualism.’’ 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 33 


Rev. Erwood lacks the qualities of a 
fair controversialist, for he read isolated 
passages from the work in question with¬ 
out giving the title of the book, the 
author’s name or the page from which he 
quoted. After the lecture when requested 
to produce the book he did so with reluc¬ 
tance. I happen to have a copy of Father 
Gmeiner’s work. From a glance at this 
book it will easily be seen that Rev. 
Erwood made a dismal failure of his 
attempt to prove his claim. In the open¬ 
ing paragraph of his preface the reverend 
author sets forth the purpose of his book 
in the following words: 

“The main object of the following 
pages is to defend certain Christian 
doctrines against two classes of oppo¬ 
nents, very numerous in this country: 
against Materialists, who, like the Sad- 
ducees of old, believe neither in angels 
nor devils; and against modern Spirit¬ 
ualists who imagine that, since the 
mysterious rappings at Hydesville, N. 
Y., a new revelation from the Unseen 
Above, superior to Christianity and des- 


34 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 


tined to supersede it, has dawned upon 
mankind.” 

On page 262, in his last chapter, the 
same author says: 

“From all this we see that lying devils 
are trying to dupe men by pretending to 
be the spirits of dear friends or of other 
persons. Hence it is clear why already 
Moses—Deut. 18 : 11—mentioned the 
seeking of ‘the truth from the dead,’ as 
one of the ‘abominations’ for which the 
Lord had decided to have the impious 
inhabitants of Canaan destroyed by the 
Israelites. Hence it is also clear why the 
Bible and the church have always for¬ 
bidden necromancy, or the practice of 
consulting the dead. Whoever does so, 
exposes himself to the danger of being 
badly deluded by lying devils, and of 
getting under their influence.” 

Exasperated, doubtless, by my con¬ 
demnation of Spiritism involved in the 
questions I proposed, Rev. Erwood in¬ 
stead of answering them hides behind 
such rubbish as the following: “I chal¬ 
lenge every church from the Roman 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 35 


Catholic down to tell me where there is 
a place in the Bible where God said be a 
Catholic, Methodist, etc., etc.” 

The wisest of the sons of men, King 
Solomom, in his chapter in the Bible 
on fools—Prov. 26:5—says: “Answer a 
fool according to his folly, lest he 
imagine himself to be wise.” Having 
a profound regard for the wisdom of 
Solomon, I will follow his suggestion 
in Rev. Erwood’s case and ask him a 
question of the same trend as his own. 
Can you, Rev. Erwood, show me a 
passage in the Bible in which God 
commands me not to be a Catholic? 
The lesson which I wish to inject into 
your head is this: If the Bible is silent 
about a certain matter, it does not follow 
that it is forbidden. The logical conse¬ 
quence implied in your question, is that 
we must do nothing except what is found 
commanded in the Bible. The mere 
statement of your position, as indicated 
by your question, is enough to expose 
its fallacy. 

The Bible does not say, in as many 


36 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 


words, be a Catholic. But it teaches the 
foundation and authority of the Catholic 
Church. To wit: “And I say to thee that 
thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will 
build my church and the gates of hell 
shall not prevail against it.”—Matt. 16: 
18. “And if he will not hear the church, 
let him be to thee as the heathen and 
the publican.”—Matt. 18:17. 

Referring to my lecture Rev. Erwood 
said: “Father Flanagan says that God 
could not be expected to let your friends 
come back and speak to you. Men of 
Father Flanagan’s own faith believe they 
do, for the following story appeared in 
the Catholic Calendar for the month of 
April, 1909, just after Father Flanagan 
had delivered his lecture on Spiritualism 
in Huntington: “Mother Love,” written 
by a priest. This is rather a coincidence 
that the paper that printed a lecture 
preached by a priest should also print a 
story about spirits written by a man of 
the same faith and same calling.” 

This is the reply of a disputant who 
has a weak cause to defend. My exposi- 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 37 


tion and condemnation of Spiritism, and 
the story of an apparition referred to in 
“ Mother Love,” are not parallel cases. 
It is one thing to believe that spirits may 
appear if God permits them, and some¬ 
thing else to hold that our departed 
friends are the authors of all the foolish 
and silly nonsense of the seance room. 

I did say that it would be unworthy 
of God, who has seen fit to deprive us 
of the knowledge of many things which 
Spiritism is said to reveal, to put the 
souls of our departed friends at the 
disposal of the mediums to satisfy the 
curiosity of the sitters, Rev. Erwood in 
answer to this statement of mine said: 
“Mediums have no domain over the 
spirits and unless the friends themselves 
speak to the medium they cannot get a 
message.” Yet if the friends of the de¬ 
parted come to the medium, he, the 
medium, may call up the spirits of the 
departed in response to the wishes of the 
friends. Is not this putting the souls of 
the departed at the disposal of the 
medium and the persons consulting him? 


38 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

Is not such conduct unworthy of the 
Almighty, who has through his inspired 
word declared: “neither let there be 
found among you any one * * * that 
seeketh the truth from the dead.”— 
Deut. 18:10-11. 

There is only one other statement of 
Rev. Erwood worthy of notice. It is 
this: “I know of a priest in Minneapolis 
or Milwaukee, who when a woman who 
was a Catholic went to tell him she 
believed in Spiritualism and knew she 
could not be a Catholic and a Spiritualist 
at the same time said to her ‘Sister, go 
right on, by their fruits you shall know 
them.’” 

This is a cowardly subterfuge. I do 
not believe any Catholic priest, in good 
standing, ever gave such advise. I chal¬ 
lenge Rev. Erwood to give the name and 
address of the priest he referred to. This 
information will enable me to write to 
the priest and ascertain the truth of Rev. 
Erwood’s assertion. 

F. J. Flanagan. 

June 13, 1911. 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 39 


To the Editor of the “Echo,” 

Dear Sir: 

I have read the so-called answers to 
my questions on Spiritism, published by 
Rev. Erwood in yesterday’s Echo. I 
sent you the above letter before his 
communication appeared in your columns 
In my next letter • I shall examine his 
“answers.” 


June 14, 1911. 


F. J. Flanagan. 




Reply to Rev. Erwood’s Letter 

In Answering Rev. Father Flanagan’s 
Questions on Spiritism 

To the Editor of the “Echo,” 

Dear Sir: 

Rev. Erwood has thought it well to 
undertake to answer my questions on 
Spiritism. He prefaces his letter with a 
little homily on religious controversy. 
On general principles, he is opposed to 
religious discussions. He thinks they 
inflame the minds of the ignorant and the 
intolerant. Why then did the Spiritists 
begin this controversy? Why did Rev. 
Erwood tell his audience in the school 
hall last Thursday, that he invited the 
reverend pastor of one of the Methodist 
churches and myself to discuss Spiritism? 
Why do you not refrain from such 
conduct if you are so much opposed to 
discussions? Why did you provoke this 
controversy by your challenge? 


42 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 


Rev. Erwood says: “I always feel it a 
departure from the avocation and dignity 
of the real minister when a deliberate 
attack is made upon the religion of 
another. There is work nearer home for 
the clergy.” 

Yes, Reverend Sir, and the clergy of 
Moundsville, who spoke against Spiritism, 
were doing their duty, here at home, by 
exposing the form of devil worship which 
you have tried to defend. 

Rev. Erwood did you not depart from 
the “avocation and dignity of a real 
minister” when you dishonestly tried, 
during the course of your lecture, to 
make Father Gmeiner teach doctrines 
which the very title of his book gives 
the lie to? Was your conduct in this 
regard worthy of an honest and upright 
man? Did you not thereby make a 
cowardly attack on the Catholic Church? 
For men of your type, Rev. Erwood, to 
speak of ministerial dignity, after having 
been detected in such double-dealing as I 
have found you guilty of in misrepre¬ 
senting Catholic doctrines, is but another 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 43 


case of Satan rebuking sin. Any man who 
would stoop to such baseness and ascribe, 
as you have done, on false testimony, 
opinion to men which they repudiate, 
should not harp on ministerial dignity. 

Rev. Erwood tries to set up a simi¬ 
larity between the Catholic doctrine rela¬ 
tive to spirits and the claims of his cult. 
His authority is a story that appeared in 
the Wheeling Church Calendar. Much 
of his letter is devoted to this foolish 
contention which is not to the point. I 
never denied the doctrine that God 
could if he wished permit a spirit to 
return to this earth. Because the Church 
Calendar published a story about a ghost 
it does not follow Spiritism is the unique 
revelation which you Spiritists think it is. 
Nor are we to conclude from this fact 
that the Catholic Church teaches the*, 
doctrines of the Spiritists. Give me 
something stronger than fiction, Rev. 
Erwood, if you are going to answer my 
questions. I have no time for such 
nonsense. Any honest man would be 
ashamed of your tactics. 


44 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 


I will try, Mr Editor, to follow Rev. 
Erwood in his wanderings, after indicat¬ 
ing the weakness of his cause by dodging 
the question, and citing the account of a 
ghost story, he speaks of demons and 
necromancy. I used the word demon in 
the sense in which it has been used by 
Christian writers from the earliest days 
of Christianity. A demon is an evil 
spirit. The word has come to mean the 
same thing as devil. As for the word 
necromancy, my audience could readily 
discern from my explanations, that it 
is a special mode of divination by the 
evocation of the dead. 

My opponent next speaks of my ques¬ 
tions. “ They sound like the old ‘ Can any 
good come out of Nazareth?’ query,” 
he says. His answers, so-called, to these 
questions sound like Satan’s harangue to 
his cunning associates as described by 
Milton in “Paradise Lost.” The arch 
enemy of mankind seeing he had lost 
advised his imps that “their better part 
remains to work in close design, by fraud 
or guile. ’ ’ This is exactly what Mr. Erwood 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 45 


has done. He has resorted to fraud and 
guile. Instead of giving clear answers 
to my questions he tells of changes in 
psychological studies and retires behind 
a patent medicine advertisement. 

The Spiritualistic minister says that 
diseases that baffled the best physicians 
have been cured by spirit ministrations. 
The best physicians in both Europe and 
America, who have made Spiritism a 
life’s work, hold they have not. 

Referring to my questions and lecture 
in another paragraph Rev. Erwood has 
this to say: “In reading the preamble to 
Father Flanagan’s questions and the 
report of his lecture, it is quite apparent 
that his personal experience with Spirit¬ 
ualism, as far as its phenomena and its 
philosophy are concerned, must be very 
limited—very meagre to say the least.” 
If my knowledge of Spiritism is meagre 
and limited why did you find it necessary 
to resort to quibbling and sophistry to 
answer the questions I proposed? 

In answer to the question relative to 
the influence of the evil spirits over the 


46 Spiritualism awd the Catholic Church 


mediums Rev. Erwood says all that is 
necessary is that the mediums be sincere, 
earnest, honest, etc. I am sure Mr. 
Erwood will not accuse Huston Tuttle, 
a noted Spiritualistic author and medium, 
of want of honesty, sincerity and earnest¬ 
ness, during his seances. Nevertheless, 
Spiritism proved for him, in some in¬ 
stances at least, the source of the 
greatest possible danger. In his book, 
“The Arcana of Spiritualism,’’ on page 
232, Medium Tuttle speaks of an un¬ 
controllable desire to kill. His words are: 
“I was sitting with a circle of friends 
around a large walnut dining-table, which 
was moving in response to questions. 
The intelligence claimed to be an Indian, 
and to the request said he would sketch 
his own portrait, by my hand. I held 
a piece of chalk, the size of a small 
marble, and automatically my hand drew 
a grotesque portrait. We all laughed 
and my father, who had quitted the 
table and seated himself on the opposite 
side of the room, said, ‘It looks like 
Satan.’” 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 47 


“Instantly my mind from light and 
pleasant thoughts, was changed to fierce 
and unutterable hatred. Anger turned 
the light to bloody redness, and to kill 
was an uncontrollable desire, under which 
my hand threw the chalk with the pre¬ 
cision of a bullet, hitting the offender in 
the center of the forehead, with a force 
that shivered the chalk in pieces. Had 
it been larger, serious consequences would 
certainly have resulted. Of course the 
seance was at an end, but I did not 
escape the terrible influence for the 
evening. 

“The study of this seance showed me 
the danger which menaced the sensitive, 
and gave the key to a class of crimes 
which hitherto had remained inexplicable. ’ ’ 

On page 233, of the book above men¬ 
tioned, Mr. Tuttle calls attention to 
Suicidal Obsession in the following words: 

“While sitting in a circle at the home 
of the venerable Dr. Underhill I was for 
the time in an almost unconcious state, 
and recognized the presence of several 
Indian spirits. The roar of the Cuyahoga 


48 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

river over the rapids could be heard in 
the still evening air, and to my sensitive 
ear was very distinct. Suddenly I was 
seized with the desire to rush away to 
the rapids, and throw myself into the 
river. As I started up someone caught 
hold of me, and aroused me out of the 
impressible state I was in, so that I 
gained control of myself. Had the state 
been more profound, and I had once 
started, the end might have been dif¬ 
ferent. The desire remained all the 
evening.” 

Does not the experience of Mr. Tuttle, 
Mr. Erwood, prove as I said, that not¬ 
withstanding the aim and purpose of the 
mediums or the experimenters, they are 
never free from the influence of wicked 
and malicious spirits, and that these may 
at any time cause such feelings and 
desires to kill or commit suicide. It will 
not do to say the desire to kill was 
felt because the sitters laughed, or the 
suicidal obsession was brought about 
because of the influences of sitting in 
promiscuous circles. 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 49 

My reverend friend objects to my state¬ 
ments anent the dangers of Spiritism, 
and the evil effects of it. Dr. Godfrey 
Raupert, who was a Spiritualist himself, 
and an unprejudiced and earnest inquirer 
into the phenomena of Spiritism, after 
treating of various dangers surrounding 
Spiritism, says: “All these things con¬ 
sidered, it seems to me that some of 
the experiences of an unprejudiced and 
independent inquirer, who has himself 
passed through many of these dangers, 
and who entered upon the inquiry with 
no kind of bias or preconceptions, might 
prove helpful to many thoughtful minds 
at this present time. They present an 
aspect of this much-debated subject which 
is not very readily and willingly exposed 
to view by Spiritualists, but at which it 
is, nevertheless, of the utmost importance 
that fair-minded persons should take a 
good full look.” “The Dangers of Spirit¬ 
ualism,” pages 11 and 12. 

Dr. Raupert’s book teems with example 
after example of the dangers of Spiritism. 
For further information on the question 


50 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 


I refer Mr. Erwood to the testimony of 
other Spiritualists, viz.: Henry M. Huguin 
in his work “Spirit Possession/' and 
teachings of Dr. B. F. Hatch in “Spirit¬ 
ualism Unveiled.” 

In answer to question No. 5, regarding 
the silly tricks of the spirits, Mr. Erwood 
tells us spirits give silly answers because 
there are so many silly people who 
approach this subject in a flippant man¬ 
ner, etc. 

But what has he to say of the cele¬ 
brated scientist who conducted their ex¬ 
periments in good faith ? They frequently 
received silly answers to grave questions. 

That the spirits give conflicting ac¬ 
counts of the other world does not seem 
a grave flaw in the spiritistic philosophy 
to Mr. Erwood. How then are you to 
know when you have the right view of 
the hereafter, since the spirits are your 
guides and teachers and they differ hope¬ 
lessly in their teachings? 

My seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth 
questions Rev. Erwood answers by say¬ 
ing that as yet Spiritualism is in process 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 51 

of development, and he does not claim 
perfection for the spirits. He also men¬ 
tions the names of scientists who have 
professed belief in the spirit phenomena 
and the identity of the spirit communi¬ 
cating. 

You are wrong, Rev. Erwood. The 
reliable and cautious scientists who have 
examined the spiritistic phenomena and 
testified to their reality, have not com¬ 
mitted themselves further than to declare 
that these phenomena must be attributed 
to intelligent agents. They do not assert, 
as you try to say they do, that they 
believe in the identity of the communi¬ 
cating spirit. 

Why did you not answer my seventh, 
eighth, ninth and tenth questions with¬ 
out quibbling? Your theory of develop¬ 
ment is too thin. 

In treating of the difficulty in estab¬ 
lishing the identity of a spirit, Medium 
Erwood maintains that “it is due at 
times to undue haste, to unnecessary 
eagerness and lack of development/’ 

How then is one sure when in the 


52 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

seance room that he is communicating 
with his dear dead friends? What assur¬ 
ance have people on such occasions that 
they are not being duped by lying spirits? 

My opponent also asserts that Spiritism 
is not opposed to the teachings of Holy 
Scripture and the doctrine of the divinity 
of Jesus Christ. 

One of the greatest mediums that ever 
lived, Mr. Stanton Moses, wrote a book 
called “Spirit Teaching.” This book 
holds among Spiritists a position not un¬ 
like that of the Bible among Christians. 
A quotation from “Spirit Teaching” will 
prove that Spiritism is manifestly antag¬ 
onistic to the teachings of Scripture and 
the divinity of Jesus Christ. On page 70 
of “Spirit Teaching” we read: 

“We would have you know that the 
spiritual idea of Jesus, the Christ, is no 
more like the human notion, with its 
accessories of atonement and redemp¬ 
tion, as men have grasped them, than 
was the calf, ignorantly carved by the 
ancient Hebrews, like to God who strove 
to reveal Himself to them.” 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 53 


I could fill your whole paper, Mr. 
Editor, with like passages from Spiritual¬ 
istic writers in support of my assertion. 

The only remaining portions of Rev. 
Erwood’s “answers” worthy of consider¬ 
ation are the last two paragraphs of his 
letter. 

He quotes the Golden Rule: “What¬ 
soever ye would that others should do 
unto you, do ye also unto them.” Very 
good, sir. But why did you not observe 
this rule? Why did you through your 
agent challenge me to discuss Spiritism? 

In concluding his epistle the good and 
gentle Spiritualistic minister, with his 
exalted ideas of ministerial dignity, and 
his highly warped notions of fair con¬ 
troversy, speaks of privileges which the 
Constitution guarantees him. He sug¬ 
gests that the clergy, Catholic and other¬ 
wise, keep their hands off, and keep their 
own people from insanity, etc. 

I never denied to you or any of your 
cult, any of your privileges or rights. If 
you Spiritists are satisfied to be duped by 
lying spirits who masquerade as the souls 


54 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

of the dead, I have no quarrel with you 
on that score. I respect your conscience, 
if you have a conscience, but when you 
challenge me through the press to discuss 
Spiritism, or deny my right to expose its 
errors, then I claim the right of defending 
myself. 

F. J. Flanagan. 

Moundsville, W. Va., June 15, 1911. 


Rev. Erwood Replies to 
Father Flanagan 

To the Editor of the “Echo.” 

Dear Sir: 

With your kind permission I would 
like to answer Father Flanagan’s letters 
in recent issues of the Echo. I regret 
that absence from the city made it 
impossible for me to give these letters 
immediate attention. I dare say Father 
Flanagan has construed the delay to 
mean that his latest effusions have thor¬ 
oughly disheartened us. But it would 
require better arguments than he has yet 
produced to dispose of Spiritualism or 
Spiritualists. 

Father Flanagan’s letter concerning 
my lecture in Moundsville is so mani¬ 
festly unreliable that all fair-minded 
people who attended that lecture will see 
through it at once. But those who were 
not in attendance may have been misled 


56 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

by his statements, and it is to those I 
address myself at present. 

In his letter of June 14 this “fair 
controversialist” waxes dramatically in¬ 
dignant over what he is pleased to term 
my: “ peculiar controversial methods/’ 
which he proudly claims to have 
“exposed.” All of this comes with ill 
grace from a man whose only knowledge 
of that lecture comes from a garbled 
report, couched in language the very 
construction of which disposes of its 
reliability. 

Father Flanagan has, no doubt in¬ 
advertently, misrepresented the matter 
when he accuses the Spiritualists of 
inaugurating this controversy. He says: 
“The immediate occasion of my dis¬ 
cussing Spiritism through your columns 
was the appearance * * * of an invita¬ 
tion or kind of challenge to me from 
those in charge of a Spiritualistic lecture 
to ask questions.” 

Thus he accuses the Spiritualist of 
starting the controversy. He conveni¬ 
ently forgets his own attack on Spirit- 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 57 


ualism in the lecture delivered by him, 
in the school auditorium, prior to my 
visit there. Perhaps he thinks that was 
not an attack. Being a “fair controver¬ 
sialist’ ’ Father Flanagan would not take 
advantage of the situation when there 
was no one there to answer him—nor 
would he read an isolated passage from 
any book. (?) 

Then he gives a wrong view of the 
invitation in the Echo; he would have 
his people believe that he had been 
singled out for attack. If the readers 
of the Echo will turn to the June 4 
issue, they will find that the gentleman 
who had charge of the arrangements 
invited all ministers to attend, adding 
that since Father Flanagan and Rev. 
Riker had recently lectured on Spirit¬ 
ualism, they were especially invited to 
be present and ask questions. (I quote 
from memory here as I have not a copy 
of that issue.) 

I am told that Father Flanagan said 
he would be there Thursday night; that 
he was a man of his word and would be 


58 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 


present. But he was not there. Then he 
says: “I asked eleven questions relative 
to Spiritism,” and adds: “in a subsequent 
issue of the Echo , Rev. Erwood promised 
to answer my questions, in the school 
hall, last Thursday night.’* Will Father 
Flanagan produce that “subsequent 
issue”—I would like to see “my 
promise.” Yes, indeed, Father Flanagan 
is a “fair controversialist.” I made no 
such promise. 

Then he says: “The people who went 
to hear Rev. Erwood had a right to 
expect that he would answer the ques¬ 
tions as he had advertised to do.” Did 
they, indeed? Father Flanagan knows 
he requested an answer through the 
columns of the Echo. Read his ques¬ 
tions and see what he has to say, viz., 
“if those in charge * * * can answer 
these questions let them do so in these 
columns.” Thus it is plain the people 
had no right to expect an answer else¬ 
where unless Father Flanagan had been 
present. 

Father Flanagan’s knowledge of the 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 59 


lecture is entirely “hearsay” evidence— 
based principally on the imperfect report 
rendered by a young stenographer who 
frankly admitted that she was unable to 
get a full report of that lecture. At least 
I have been led to believe that she was 
trying to get a report for our absentee 
questioner. And how imperfect the 
reports received by him is apparent by 
the substance of his letters. 

Father Flanagan quotes me as saying: 
“I am not ready for the questions that 
appeared in one of your local papers.” 
And my auditors know full well that' 
this is incorrect. I said “I will answer 
the questions in the paper; I consider 
them very simple indeed.” 

In his eagerness to prove me unfair 
he accuses me of reading “ isolated pas¬ 
sages,” and an attempt to conceal the 
name of the book, etc. In the course of 
my lecture I read from more than twenty 
pages of the book, “Spirits of Darkness,” 
stating as I did so that it was written 
against Spiritualism, by a priest of the 
Milwaukee diocese. He says: “after the 


60 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 


lecture when requested to produce the 
book he did so with reluctance/’ 

Now, let us see as to that. After the 
lecture a member of Father Flanagan’s 
church asked to see the book, which I 
immediately handed him in the presence 
of a dozen persons. When he read the 
title page and saw that it was printed 
by “Hoffman Bros. Printers to The Holy 
Apostolic See,” he was much perturbed, 
and declared he did not believe the book 
to have been published with the sanction 
of a priest, and doubted that Hoffman 
Bros, were official printers, etc. 

The sight of the book must have dis¬ 
turbed his memory greatly, for despite 
the fact that he saw the book, read its 
title page, etc., and conferred with the 
young lady who had attempted to take 
notes, he was unable to inform Father 
Flanagan as to the name of the book; 
on the following—Friday—morning the 
young lady telephoned me and asked the 
name of the volume, which I gave her, 
also telling her the name of publishers, 
and city in which book was published. 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 61 


Had I been trying to conceal all of this 
that was my chance. 

I very cheerfully admit that Father 
Gmiener wrote his book against Spirit¬ 
ualism, but this is a fact which in no 
way proves that he made a good case 
against it. Indeed his case against 
Spiritualism is about as flimsy as Father 
Flanagan’s. The argument used is about 
this: “What takes place under the aus¬ 
pices of the Catholic Church is of God 
* * * but what occurs outside the domain 
of that church is Satanic.” 

Father Gmiener believes in a Spirit 
world; so does the Spiritualist. Father 
Gmiener believes both good and bad 
spirits return—that the souls of the dead 
may administer to the living; so does 
the Spiritualist. If I were to use Father 
Flanagan’s own courteous phraseology I 
would say: “The lesson which I wish to 
inject into your head is this;” It is a 
very strange thing that a Catholic priest 
who believes as much in the ministration 
of the so-called dead, as the average 
priest does, should make the ludicrous 


62 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

attempt to discredit similar phenomena 
among Spiritualists, simply because they 
occur outside the pale of Catholicism. 

That the “communion of saints/’ or 
the appearance of departed souls is a 
common belief in the Catholic Church, 
even Father Flanagan will not deny. 
Father Flanagan quotes the intention of 
Father Gmiener, in writing his book, 
“Spirits of Darkness.” He fails to quote 
a belief that appears on the very first 
page of that book, viz: “But what is to 
us, as Christians, of still greater impor¬ 
tance, is that also both the Bible and the 
church teach in unmistakable terms, 
that such a spirit world really exists, 
and that the spirits, both good and bad, 
continually take a lively interest in the 
affairs of mankind.” 

On page 55 of the same book, Father 
Gmiener remarks: “Of course not all 
phenomena caused by spirits, and wit¬ 
nessed on earth, are to be ascribed to 
the agency of evil spirits. Many such 
phenomena, of which we, for instance, 
often read in the Bible or in the lives of 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 63 


the saints, are undoubtedly due to the 
agency of good spirits, holy angels, 
or to God himself/’ Father Gmiener’s 
.language sounds like a line from the 
lecture of a Spiritualist. 

With the supreme egotism for which 
they are noted men like Father Flanagan 
assert—if a phenomenon occurs in the 
presence of a Catholic, God has sent a 
special dispensation to bless him; but if 
a similar phenomenon occurs to any 
other, then, forsooth, it’s the Devil, say 
these authoritorians. If a dead Catholic 
comes back—even though it is to beg for 
prayers of intercession for the relief of his 
tortured soul, it is an act of Providence 
in the eyes of Father Flanagan. But if 
a departed Spiritualist mother returns to 
her son, he would cry, “evil spirits.” 

After accusing me of trying to hide 
behind “rubbish” Father Flanagan pro¬ 
ceeds to set up a man of straw, and 
valiantly demolishes it with the flourish 
of his “profound regard for the wisdom 
of Solomon.” He refers to a portion of 
a statement of mine—his reporters only 


64 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

getting a small portion of what I said. 
It was this: 

After relating an experience that I had 
had with a gentleman of the cloth, who 
declared that God was opposed to Spirit¬ 
ualism, because the Bible nowhere men¬ 
tioned the subject I said:“We can use 
that argument the other way, and say 
that we challenge every church denomi¬ 
nation to show where Jesus or God said 
go out and be a Catholic, a Methodist, 
a Baptist, a Spiritualist, etc.” Thus 
Father Flanagan, the only difficulty 
with the lesson you “wish to inject into 
my head,” is you are too late on the 
scene. 

Wrestling with his man of straw Father 
Flanagan, proudly exclaims: “if the Bible 
is silent about a certain matter it does 
not follow that it is forbidden.” And he 
thinks he has made a mighty stroke with 
the declaration, but, gentle sir, you are 
late, I called attention to that fact in my 
lecture, and all of my hearers who had 
any power of comprehension at all are 
aware of the fact. 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 65 


Rev. Flanagan graciously admits that: 
“the Bible does not say, in as many 
words be a Catholic,” “but,” he adds, 
“it teaches the foundation and authority 
of the ‘Catholic Church/” And he 
quotes, as his authority, the statement 
of a man whom the members of his own 
clergy admit did not write until some 
years after the transition of Jesus. This 
he construes to mean the “Catholic 
Church.” It is to be hoped, for the sake 
of that authority, that the reporters who 
put the foregoing words in the mouth of 
Jesus had better memories than those 
who reported my lecture to my good 
friend. 

The reverend father makes much of 
the silence of the Bible, and remarks— 
with great gentleness and courtesy— 
“the lesson I wish to inject into your 
head is this: if the Bible is silent about 
a certain matter it does not follow that 
it is forbidden.” Thanks, father, I have 
the lesson “injected” into my head. 
Had you been at the hall the night I 
lectured you would have known that 


66 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 


was precisely the position I took. I am 
glad it has your endorsement. 

Now, my generous opponent objects to 
the reference to the article on “Mother 
Love,” and says it: “is the reply of a 
disputant who has a weak cause to 
defend.” However “weak” that cause 
may be it is giving Father Flanagan, 
and many others of the Catholic clergy, 
no little uneasiness. Did they not rec¬ 
ognize its strength they would not fight 
it as they do. The Pope would not have 
sanctioned the work of Dr. Godfrey 
Raupert in his lectures against Spirit¬ 
ualism. 

Father Flanagan says: “it is one thing 
to believe that spirits may appear if God 
permits them, and something else to hold 
that our departed friends are the authors 
of all the foolish and silly nonsense of 
the seance room.” How very profound! 
(?) From this we are safe in assuming, 
I suppose, that Father Flanagan has 
spent much time in the “seance room,” 
and knows, by actual experience, whereof 
he speaks. I would be perfectly willing 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 67 


to have the thought which emanated 
from “seance rooms” in which I have 
been put beside some of the “illumined” 
teaching of some of Father Flanagan’s 
predecessors. 

Now we have the reverend father 
waxing great in authority. He tells us: 
“it would be unworthy of God, who has 
seen fit to deprive us of the knowledge of 
many things which Spiritism is said to 
reveal, to put the souls of our departed 
friends at the disposal of the mediums 
to satisfy the curiosity of the sitters.” 
No Spiritualist that I have ever known 
contends that the medium has dominion 
over departed spirits; it is a fact, as I 
emphatically stated that they must come 
voluntarily, or else there will be no 
communication. 

He thinks it is “unworthy” of God 
that he allows these manifestations to 
occur among Spiritualists; but when a 
portion of the finger of a dead Catholic 
is pressed by the lips of the living, it is 
quite worthy of God, to permit strange 
manifestations and divers so-called mir- 


68 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

acles to occur. All the things told of 
Anthony of Padua; of Winefride, and 
many of others are quite worthy of God, 
because the Church tells the story. 

My friend talks about “calling up the 
dead;” yet no Spiritualist believes in 
such a thing. Father Flanagan might 
have to call his friends “up” but ours 
do not come that way. And the Spirit¬ 
ualist is emphatic in the belief that every¬ 
thing occurs in harmony with infinite law. 
The medium has no power to compel the 
presence of the departed. I am sure 
God must be greatly gratified to have 
a Father Flanagan to inform him when 
His conduct is “unworthy.” 

I have already intimated the unrelia¬ 
bility of Father Flanagan’s information 
concerning my lecture. The following 
quotation is self-evidently unreliable; his 
reporter quotes me as follows: “I know 
a priest in Minneapolis or Milwaukee, 
who when a woman went to tell him she 
believed in Spiritualism and knew she 
could not be a Catholic and a Spiritual¬ 
ist at the same time said to her: ‘Sister, 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 69 


go right on, by their fruits you shall 
know them.*” 

Not only is the phraseology wrong in 
its sense—it is worse. It must be a 
strange kind of a reporter who could not 
tell the next day after a lecture whether 
a man said Minneapolis or Milwaukee. 
Yet this is the situation with Father 
Flanagan’s reporter. I did say I knew 
“of a priest” who is said to have made 
a similar remark. The lady in question, 
who told me this experience, said she 
went to a priest in the church of which 
she was a communicant, and told him 
of her spiritual experiences, and of the 
comfort she had given others, after which 
she was told to “go right on as she was 
doing a good work.” 

Father Flanagan wants the name of 
the priest. If the lady will give the 
permission to have her name, and that 
of her confessor, told, he shall have it. 
Otherwise, even at the risk of incurring 
his displeasure it will have to be with¬ 
held, naturally. 

In conclusion let me say that, with 


70 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 


your permission, Mr. Editor, I shall 
examine Father Flanagan’s last letter, 
dated June 15, in my next communica¬ 
tion, which I hope to get to you in time 
for the next issue of the Echo. 

WiUv J. Erwood. 
Wheeling, W. Va., June 23, 1911. 


Father Flanagan’s Reply 

To the Editor of the “Echo.” 

Dear Sir: 

In your issue of the 27th inst., Rev. 
Erwood after a long silence speaks again 
in defense of “Spiritualism.” 

I waited till his third letter appeared 
before replying to the communication 
above mentioned. 

The spiritist thinks I construed his 
delay to mean that he was disheartened. 
Not so, good sir. During the twelve or 
fourteen days it took you to prepare 
your “reply,” if I did think of you at 
all, it was only to view you with a 
benevolence which hardly rises to the 
dignity of contempt. Your tactics, from 
the beginning, have been to give the 
most prominence and space to petty 
matters, while you dodge the important 
points. Any child of the primary grades 
of our city schools, who read your letters, 


72 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

could easily see the hollowness of your 
position. 

Mr. Erwood says the Spiritists did 
not start the present controversy. He 
devotes three paragraphs of his letter to 
this phase of the subject, and says 
nothing. He asserts that I was not sin¬ 
gled out for attack. Yet my name was 
expressly mentioned. I was requested to 
attend the meeting and ask questions. 
This looks as though I was singled out. 

Referring to the announcement, anent 
answering my questions in the school 
hall, Rev. Erwood remarks: 

“Will Father Flanagan produce that 
subsequent issue—I would like to see my 
promise. Yes, indeed, Father Flanagan 
is a fair controversialist. I made no 
such promise.” 

I hereby produce the article in ques¬ 
tion to gratify Rev. Erwood. It ap¬ 
peared in the Echo of June 8, 1911. It 
is as follows: 

“Fair Crowds Heard Spiritualist Lec¬ 
ture; Another This Evening . 

“A fair-sized audience heard the Spirit- 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 73 


ualist lecture by Rev. Erwood at the 
Central school hall last evening. 

“This evening tickets will not be 
required, but a silver offering will be 
taken. Those already having tickets 
will not be expected to contribute to 
the offering. 

“This evening, Rev. Erwood will an¬ 
swer the questions recently propounded 
thru the Echo by Rev. Father Flanagan.” 

Now, Mr. Erwood, I have given you 
the article in its entirety. I have the 
paper in which it appeared. I did not 
“quote from memory.” The copy of the 
Echo I speak of is on file at the Echo 
office. 

Does not the announcement in the 
Echo , Mr. Editor, confirm my statement 
that Rev. Erwood promised to answer 
my questions, in the school hall on Thurs¬ 
day evening, June 8? When a man 
rushes into print and says he will do 
something, have people not a right to 
expect that he will keep his word? Is 
Rev. Erwood reduced to the necessity of 
lying to get out of the difficulty? He 


74 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 


was advertised to answer my questions. 
He did not do so. He deceived the 
people. Many went the second night of 
Mr. Erwood’s lectures to hear what he 
had to say in answer to the questions. 
They were so disappointed with the 
first evening’s output that the promised 
answering of the questions alone at¬ 
tracted them. 

It is true, when I proposed the ques¬ 
tions, I requested that they be answered 
through the columns of the Echo . I 
made this request because the challenge 
appeared in the Echo. But, when the 
paper announced that Rev. Erwood 
would answer the questions, I said that 
the people who went to hear him had a 
right to expect that he would do as he 
said. Mr. Erwood now says he made no 
promise to answer the questions in the 
school hall. This ruse will not do. Why 
did you Spiritists advertise to do some¬ 
thing you did not intend to do? 

My Spiritistic antagonist whoops of 
victory because I did not attend his 
lectures. He says: 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 75 


“I am told that Father Flanagan said 
he would be there Thursday night, that 
he was a man of his word and would be 
present.” 

Who gave you this information, Rev. 
Erwood? I did not say I would attend 
your lectures. I had not time to spare 
to attend the farce, which you and the 
medium, who gave the “spirit messages,” 
paraded before the public as communica¬ 
tions from beyond the grave, neither 
could you reasonably expect that I would 
lose time listening to the groans of your 
medium, or your own silly twaddle which 
you called a lecture. 

Again, you cannot deny, that much 
of your Spiritistic rappings, whisperings, 
mysterious writings, etc., have been 
shown to be the result of deliberate 
fraud on the part of professional me¬ 
diums. If this has been the case with 
some of your greatest mediums we can 
well judge of what your obscure diviner 
had to offer. 

Speaking of Father Gmeiner’s book, 
and the gentleman who asked to examine 


76 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 


it my unscrupulous opponent has this 
to say: 

“After the lecture a member of Father 
Flanagan’s church asked to see the book, 
which I immediately handed him in the 
presence of a dozen persons. When he 
read the title page and saw that it 
was printed by ‘Hoffman Bros., Printers 
to The Holy Apostolic See,’ he was 
much perturbed, and declared he did 
not believe the book to have been pub¬ 
lished with the sanction of a priest and 
doubted that Hoffman Bros, were official 
printers, etc. 

“The sight of the book must have dis¬ 
turbed his memory greatly, for despite 
the fact that he saw the book, read its 
title page, etc., and conferred with the 
young lady who had attempted to take 
notes, he was unable to inform Father 
Flanagan as to the name of the book; 
on the following—Friday—morning the 
young lady telephoned me and asked the 
name of the volume, which I gave her, 
also telling her the name of publishers 
and city in which book was published. 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 77 


Had I been trying to conceal all of this 
that was my chance.’” 

Of course the gentleman was surprised 
when he saw the book Rev. Erwood 
quoted from. He never remembered 
hearing of such Catholic doctrines as 
you tried to make Father Gmeiner teach. 
Any Catholic who heard your quotations, 
wrenched from the context and garbled 
to suit your foul purpose, would have 
been surprised. 

So you, Rev. Erwood, cheerfully gave 
the young lady the title of the book and 
lost a good chance to conceal all if you 
so wished. How courageous you are! 
What an honest man the Baltimore 
Spiritist must be! Rev. Erwood when 
caught and cornered was forced to give 
the name of the book from which he 
took his garbled quotations. He was 
caught as a rat in a trap, there was no 
escape for him, so he admits the truth, 
when he cannot do otherwise. Had you 
been fair and just Mr. Erwood, you 
would have given the name of the book 
from which you quoted together with 


78 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

the page, and this during your lecture, 
when you made use of your quotations. 
If you were a fair controversialist you 
would not have lied to the gentleman 
who asked for the book, by telling him 
the work was out of print and he could 
not get it. Did I say too much, Mr. 
Editor, when I denominated Rev. Erwood 
as an unfair controversialist? 

My exposure of the fallacy of Spiritism 
has evidently disturbed my friend's equa¬ 
nimity. He comes forward to defend his 
teachings. His words are: 

“That the communion of saints, or 
the appearance of departed souls is a 
common belief in the Catholic Church, 
even Father Flanagan will not deny. 
Father Flanagan quotes the intention 
of Father Gmiener, in writing his book, 
‘Spirits of Darkness.’ He fails to quote 
a belief that appears on the very first 
page of that book, viz: “But what is it 
to us, as Christians of still greater import¬ 
ance, is that both the Bible and the 
church teach in unmistakable terms, that 
such a spirit world really exists, and 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 79 


that the spirits both good and bad, 
continually take a lively interest in the 
affairs of mankind/’ 

“On page 55 of the same book, Father 
Gmiener remarks: ‘Of course not all 
phenomena caused by spirits, and wit¬ 
nessed on earth, are to be ascribed to 
the agency of evil spirits. Many such 
phenomena, of which we, for instance, 
often read in the Bible or in the lives 
of the saints, are undoubtedly due to the 
agency of good spirits, holy angels or in 
God Himself.’ Father Gmiener’s lan¬ 
guage sounds like a line from the lecture 
of a Spiritualist.” 

This is another sample of the Spirit¬ 
istic minister’s “ways that are dark and 
tricks that are vain.” He would fain 
have men believe that the Catholic 
doctrine of the communion of saints, is 
about the same as his silly notions of the 
appearance of departed spirits. 

Rev. Erwood, you should study the 
penny catechism of Catholic doctrine, 
before you undertake to explain the 
teachings of the Catholic Church. 


80 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

The communion of saints is the com¬ 
munication of spiritual blessings among 
the members of the church. It is not 
what you say it is. 

There is no sense in your quotation 
from Father Gmeiner’s book. The words 
are truly the words of Father Gmeiner, 
but they prove nothing in favor of your 
position. I never denied that both the 
church and the Bible teach the existence 
of a spirit world. I do not ascribe all 
the phenomena caused by spirits to the 
agency of evil spirits. This s not the 
question. It rests with you, Rev. Erwood, 
to prove that the spirits masquerading as 
the souls of departed friends are the 
intelligence they say they are. 

Our exponent of Spiritism, mindful of 
my Biblical quotations, in a spirit of 
gratitude thanks me, and assures me 
that he had certain lessons injected into 
his head. If so he has forgotten them. 

Turning to another portion of Mr. 
Erwood’s letter I find that he says that 
Spiritualism is giving the Catholic clergy 
no little uneasiness. Indeed Mr. Erwood 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 81 


is it so? The old mother church is not 
afraid of “Modem Spiritualism.’* She 
was built by the Divine Architect on the 
everlasting rock, and the forces issuing 
forth from the “gates of hell” in the 
guise of “Modem Spiritualism” cannot 
harm her. She does not lower her flag 
for even the spirits of darkness , nor does 
she fear their ready willing dupes the 
“Spiritualists ” In the years to come, 
“Modern Spiritualism” will be only rec¬ 
ollected in name, like any of the other 
varieties of wickedness or folly, then the 
future ecclesiastical historian will write 
the thrilling record, namely, that of all 
the phases of irreligion, “Modem Spirit¬ 
ualism,” was the greatest humbug of 
any age. 

The Catholic Church, bear in mind my 
misguided Spiritist, saw the rise and fall 
of enemies more powerful than “Modern 
Spiritism.” She will last till the end of 
time, and ever carry on her warfare 
against Satan, even though he be trans¬ 
formed into “the angel of light,” you 
Spiritists make of him. 


82 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

After telling Catholics that they should 
be uneasy about the great advance of 
Spiritism the Rev. Medium gives way 
again to his furious antics and frenzied 
shrieks, because I said it would be 
unworthy of God to put the souls of the 
departed at the disposal of the mediums 
of his cult. Horribly stuffed with the 
epithets of war, he buckles on his armor, 
mounts his steed, and rides full-tilt 
against “a portion of the finger of a 
dead Catholiconly to discover that 
the saints are the friends of God, and 
their bones are worthy of respect. 

The next move of our Spiritistic cham¬ 
pion is to object to my reporter’s account 
of his lecture. There is one portion of it, 
however, the substance of which he 
admits. I am surprised that he admits 
anything. He does not deny having 
said, that he knew a lady, who told him 
that a priest advised her to continue to 
be a Spiritist. I asked Rev. Erwood to 
give me the name of the priest he told 
of. He has not done so. To get out of 
the difficulty he shifts about. He says: 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 83 


“ If the lady will give permission, to have 
her name, and that of her confessor, told, 
he shall have it. Otherwise even at the 
risk of incurring his displeasure, it will 
have to be withheld, naturally.” 

Now, Rev. Erwood, this is another of 
your tricks. People are not gullible 
enough to believe what you say. No 
Catholic priest, in good • standing, ever 
approved of Spiritism in the sense in 
which you teach it. I do not believe 
what you say. I have found you so 
utterly unreliable in your explanations, 
etc., that until you give me the desired 
information I must look upon your 
statement as foully false and detestably 
calumnious. 

If the case you speak of was such a 
secret why did you make use of it on a 
public platform? 

In my next letter, Mr. Editor, I shall 
consider Rev. Erwood’s letter of Thurs¬ 
day evening. 

F. J. Flanagan. 

Moundsville, W. Va., 

Friday , June 30, 1911 . 






Rev. Erwood Writes Again on 
the Spiritualism Controversy 

Editor Moundsvieee “Echo,” 

Dear Sir: 

“Whom the gods would destroy they 
first make mad.” Our good friend, 
Father Flanagan, has become so excited 
that in his last letter he again forgets 
to confine himself strictly to facts in the 
case. Continuing to reveal his unreliable 
information concerning my lecture in 
Moundsville he again accuses me of 
“inviting him” to discuss “Spiritism;” 
but this time he adds: “the reverend 
pastor of one of the Methodist churches.” 

In his previous letter he said that I 
had “advertised” to answer his questions 
in the hall—that I had “promised” so 
to do, etc. Yet the facts are that I 
neither advertised, nor caused to be 
advertised, any such statement. I would 
not have done so after reading his 
questions, unless I was sure that Father 


86 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

Flanagan would he present. They told me 
that he would be there because he had 
said so; I felt certain that Rev. Flanagan 
would not be present, and so expressed 
myself. Consequently I “promised” to 
reply through the columns of the Echo. 

Father Flanagan exclaims—after tak¬ 
ing a fling at my views of religious con¬ 
troversy—“Why did you provoke this 
controversy by your challenge ?” I pre¬ 
sume he thinks we should remain meekly 
submissive whenever a Catholic priest 
or other clergymen see fit to attack 
Spiritualism. He accuses me of making 
“a cowardly attack on the Catholic 
Church,” and waxes exceedingly indig¬ 
nant. Yet his “lecture” on “Spiritism” 
was not a cowardly attack. Now he 
seeks to bring the Methodist clergyman 
into the discussion, knowing full well that 
his theology regards Methodism as quite 
as unscriptural as it does Spiritualism. 

Father Flanagan no doubt thought 
that he had the field clear, and might 
attack Spiritualism to his heart’s content, 
and there would be no response—but 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 87 

that day is passed, my dear friend. We 
are quite familiar with the arrogance of 
the “Father Flanagan’s” in every age; 
we know something of their attacks on 
the different religious movements of the 
world. And the present Father Flanagan 
is not the first one who has attempted 
to show that the devil was back of 
innovations in progress. As they have 
unsuccessfully battled against the Brunos, 
the Gallileos and the Copernicus of all 
ages, so they will unsuccessfully battle 
against Spiritualism. 

He glibly prates about exposing “devil 
worship,” as he characterizes Spiritualism. 
We have heard that story before. And 
insinuates that Spiritualism is destructive 
to health, morals and Christ-like conduct. 
But I am quite certain the character and 
morals of the average Spiritualist will 
compare quite favorably with that of 
members of Father Flanagan’s own de¬ 
nomination. As for health and sanity they 
will stand the test quite well,' I think. 

And Father Flanagan says: “* * * did 
you not depart from the ‘avocation and 


88 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

dignity' of a real minister when you dis¬ 
honestly tried to make Father Gmiener 
teach doctrines which the very title of 
his book gives the lie to." Am I to 
infer that the title of the book gave the 
“lie" to what I read? Very good! We 
shall see! 

My position in my lecture was this: 
It is singular that a church which has so 
much lore concerning the dead and their 
interest in the living, should be so eager 
to destroy the very thing that would 
corroborate the possibility of some of 
the phenomena which are so profusely 
recorded in its own literature. And I 
stated that the Catholic Church taught 
that the so-called dead could and did 
return. This statement I reiterate here. 
In support of the contention I read 
from Father Gmiener’s book, quotations 
from which appear in yesterday's letter. 
Father Flanagan will not deny this 
belief in the Catholic Church. He can¬ 
not. But he will seek to evade the 
issue by telling us: “that is different— 
that is in the Catholic Church by God's 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 89 


permission.” Does he know of anything 
that is not “by God’s permission?” 

Father Gmiener, on page 6, of “Spirits 
of Darkness,” says: “The belief, then, 
in the existence and manifestations of 
spirits on earth, is to be met with not 
only among ancient and heathen nations, 
but it is firmly held also by the Bible and 
the church* in which countless millions of 
the most civilized and intelligent people 
nowadays believe.” 

He also says, on page 1: “ * * * both 
the Bible and the church teach in un¬ 
mistakable terms, that such a spirit- 
world really exists, and that the spirits, 
both good and bad, continually take a 
lively interest in the affairs of mankind.” 

The Spiritualist is emphatic in the 
same belief. Father Flanagan would get 
around that by the declaration that the 
good spirits were Catholics, and the bad 
spirits, Spiritualists. Yet his theology 
teaches that those who linger in purgatory 
may come back, as well as those who 
have gone higher. And the man in 
purgatory is not as good as he might be, 


90 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 


hence, it may be that even Catholics are 
visited by undesirables. Indeed Father 
Gmiener so teaches. Of that later. 

Then Father Gmiener, after discussing 
the manner in which some ‘‘so-called 
scientists” sought to explain away spirit 
phenomena, makes this very significant 
statement: (page 14) 

‘‘We see this is a matter of vital im¬ 
portance to Christianity nowadays, and 
deserves our earnest attention. If all 
alleged spirit-manifestations were only 
products of delusion or deception, as 
some modern scientists quite confidently 
insinuate or declare—then the Christian 
religion would be mistaken in one of its 
very fundamental doctrines.” 

According to this writer “spirit-com¬ 
munion” is one of the “fundamental” 
doctrines of “Christianity.” And Father 
Gmiener quotes St. Thomas in support 
of his contentions, working strenuously 
to prove that there are such things as 
spirit phenomena which may be ascribed 
to either good or bad spirits. In this 
he is simply stating a fact frankly 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 91 


admitted by all Spiritualists who have 
made a study of the matter. 

Father Gmiener even quotes from 
“Pagan and Heathen” experiences to 
strengthen his case, and winds up by a 
declaration that “Spiritualism” is the 
work of demons, devils, etc. He has an 
array of “ghost stories and demoniacal 
obsessions” occuring during the pastorate 
of various priests, that would do credit to 
the Fairy Tales of Hans Anderson. And 
interspersed throughout the book we find 
such assuring passages as this: (page 55) 

“Of course, not all phenomena caused 
by spirits and witnessed on earth, are to 
be ascribed to the agency of evil spirits. 
Many such phenomena, of which we, for 
instance, often read in the Bible or in 
the lives of the saints, are undoubtedly 
due to the agency of good spirits or holy 
angels, or God Himself.” 

He assures us that: “some spirit- 
phenomena may be of doubtful character 
as to their origin; it may be difficult, 
under the circumstances, to decide 
whether they are to be ascribed to 


92 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

good or evil spirits.” And again: “some 
spirit phenomena are undoubtedly to be 
ascribed to the agency of evil spirits; 
according to the rule; ‘by their fruits 
you shall know them.’” (Page 55.) 

Had Father Gmiener deliberately 
sought to state the position of the 
Spiritualist on these matters he could 
not have done so more clearly than in 
the above quotations. We believe in 
testing the spirit—in trying them when 
they seek to manifest. 

For reading the above, and many 
other passages, during my lecture Father 
Flanagan accuses me of trying to make 
“Father Gmiener teach doctrines which 
the very title of his book gives the lie to.” 
And he wails: “cowardly attack on the 
Catholic Church.” Father Flanagan's 
attack on “Spiritualism” was heroic—a 
brave, manly event. (?) My brief refer¬ 
ences to his own literature is, in his 
estimation, “cowardly.” Do the above 
references misrepresent Catholic doc¬ 
trines? If they do I am not the one who 
is guilty of misrepresentation. 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 93 


When Father Flanagan lacked the 
courage to attend the meeting held there 
in Moundsville, and depended entirely 
upon hear-say evidence for his knowledge 
thereof, it ill becomes him to talk of 
“baseness and misrepresentation.” 

And my reverend friend talks about 
“wandering.’' The only thing necessary 
in this connection is to ask the readers 
to take my letter in the issue of June 13, 
and Father Flanagan's letter in issue of 
June 16. They will then see who it is that 
has wandered .'' After quoting us a passage 
from Milton’s “Paradise Lost” relative 
to “fraud and guile” he declares: “This is 
exactly what Mr. Erwood has done.” 

Continuing, he says: “He has resorted 
to fraud and guile. Instead of clear 
answers to my questions he tells of 
changes in psychological studies and 
retires behind a patent medicine adver¬ 
tisement.” You are mistaken, Reverend 
Sir, I have not retired—nor am I likely 
to so long as you continue as you have, 
and this generous Editor will give me 
space in which to reply. 


94 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

That “patent medicine advertisement” 
hurts Father Flanagan, because it and 
its endorsements are quite sufficient to 
prove that Catholic clergymen suffer 
from the maladies which he tried to 
make the people believe were special 
possessions of Spiritualists. Father 
Flanagan is the man “of guile.” He 
tried to make it appear that the majority 
of the most noted Spiritualists became 
insane, neurotics and suicides. He knows 
better, if he knows anything about the 
subject at all. 

He has tried to make it appear that 
all the phenomena of Spiritualism were 
of demoniac agency—using the term as 
he uses it. Father Flanagan’s knowledge 
of the subject is too limited to justify 
him in such a declaration. He has tried 
to give the impression that Spiritualism 
is devil worship; yet did he know of 
Spiritualists as much as he claims, he 
would know how untrue that is. Because 
a man believes he can communicate with 
a departed friend outside of the Catholic 
Church, he is a “devil worshipper.” 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 95 


Talk about “sophistry and quibbling,” 
my gentle, “fair minded controversialist’’ 
is a very prince of quibblers and sophists. 
When he attempts to answer what I said 
about the “dual meaning of demon,” he 
says: “a demon is an evil spirit.” 

He does not deny, however, that it has 
been defined for centuries exactly as I 
said, viz: “the spirit of a dead man, 
either good or bad.” He knows it has 
been used by scholars, lexicographers 
and classical writers in that dual sense. 
Yet with his wily sophistry he would 
impress his readers with the belief that 
it is evil. He is with this as with his 
attempt to make it appear that we 
attacked him. But so long as the report 
of his lecture on Spiritualism stands in 
the Catholic and secular press he will be 
unable to make good his contention, 
however much he tries. 

Now, Rev. Flanagan talks to me about 
“isolated” passages, etc. Yet in answer 
to my statement that “sincerity, earn¬ 
estness * * * purity of thought, etc.,” 
was a safeguard against “evil spirits,” 


96 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

he flaunts a statement found in Hudson 
Tuttle’s “Arcana of Spiritualism” in 
which Mr. Tuttle tells of an experience 
in which he felt an uncontrollable desire 
to kill; also of a desire to commit suicide 
when he heard the rush of the water. 
And my good friend remarks; “I am 
sure Mr. Erwood will not accuse Hudson 
Turtle * * * of want of honesty, sincerity 
and earnestness during his seances.” 

Certainly not! The very fact that 
Hudson Tuttle related that experience 
in a book that was written in the interest 
of Spiritualism proves the man sincere 
and honest. Father Flanagan, however, 
refrains from telling us that this was one 
of the earliest experiences of Hudson 
Tuttle. He refrains from mentioning 
the cautions given by Hudson Tuttle, 
nor does he relate the fact that Mr. 
Tuttle did not commit suicide, nor kill. 
He failed to relate that Mr. Tuttle is 
author of numerous books, in some of 
which there are bits of ethical instruction 
that even Father Flanagan might imbibe 
to his manifest profit. 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 97 


No, no! Father Flanagan would not 
take advantage of an isolated passage. 
Oh, no! He is too fair. (?) But, is such 
a statement as the one quoted from 
Hudson Tuttle an argument against a 
system of thought? Is the fact that a 
man is tempted to make away with him¬ 
self, or destroy another, or make any 
other mistake an argument against a 
religious movement? If it is, then indeed 
would Father Flanagan be left more dan¬ 
gerously situated than he now imagines. 
Listen: 

“Yet no mortal is perfectly secure 
from the temptations of Satan. The 
better the Christian, the greater the 
saint, the more he may expect that the 
evil spirits hate and molest him, as far 
as Providence may permit. The pious 
author of the ‘Following of Christ,’ book 
IV, chapter 18, 3, observes: ‘The devil 
tempts not unbelievers and sinners, whom 
he surely possesses, but the devout faith¬ 
ful, he many ways tempts and molests.’ 
This explains why we read so much of 
temptations and diabolic persecutions in 


98 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 


the lives of the saints or pious Christian.” 
“Spirits of Darkness/’ by Rev. John 
Gmiener, page 49. 

Father Gmiener tells us that: “these 
spirits can go no further than God’s 
Providence permits them.” Thus what¬ 
ever is done by good, bad or indifferent 
spirits, is in the last, in accord with the 
Providence of God. In this Father 
Flanagan will see that his argument is 
rather a dangerous thing for his own 
philosophy. Why did not Father 
Flanagan frankly tell his readers that 
there are none who are so earnestly 
zealous of. pointing out the dangers in 
the flagrant abuse of psychic power as 
Spiritualists. We frankly admit the 
dangers, and are seeking to instruct the 
reading public on that score. 

Rev. Flanagan again misquotes me, 
when he says: “my friend objects to 
my statements anent the dangers of 
Spiritism and the evil effects of it.” 
This is untrue, as Father Flanagan must 
know if he read my letter. His wrath 
must have gotten the better of his 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 99 

judgment or he would not have made 
that statement. Good friends, read my 
letter in the issue of June 13. You will 
find there the following words: 

“Yes, we admit that there is danger 
in the indiscriminate, thoughtless and 
reckless accentuation of man’s psychic 
powers.” Then follows a reasonable 
explanation of the reason. Read again, 
Father. 

Now here is what I object to: I object 
to Father Flanagan’s arrogant assertion 
that the tendency of Spiritualism is 
toward “insanity, nervous disorders and 
suicide.” I object to his arrogation to 
himself of the right of judgment over 
the millions of Spiritualists, who number 
among them as fine characters, mentally, 
morally, physically and spiritually, as 
are to be found in any church all the 
way down the line to the Catholic Church. 
I object to the insinuation, contained in 
your words, of degeneracy; this you 
imply when you accuse us of devil 
worship and the like. 

Rev. Flanagan quotes Dr. Godfrey 


100 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

Raupert’s book: “The Dangers of Spirit¬ 
ualism, M as another one of his evidences 
against Spiritualism; and he tells us that 
Dr. Raupert was himself a Spiritualist. 
Unless I am greatly mistaken Dr. 
Raupert lectured in this country not 
very long ago against Spiritualism, under 
the auspices of various Catholic Institu¬ 
tions, and with the direct sanction of 
the present Pope. That’s the kind of 
Spiritualist Dr. Raupert is. He quotes, 
or rather “refers” me to the works of 
Henry M. Huguin and Dr. B. F. Hatch. 
If these are the best works he can quote 
or refer to, he is indeed in a bad way. 

Why does he not refer us to Dr. I. K. 
Funk’s works; Dr. Funk does not claim 
to be a Spiritualist, but has given a fair 
and impartial statement of his experi¬ 
ences. He might have referred us to the 
works of Camille Flammarion, of Sir Wm. 
Crookes, Alfred Russell Wallace, Prof. 
Richet, Sir Oliver Lodge, Frederick W. 
H. Meyers and many others, not except¬ 
ing the works of Prof. James Hyslop. 
Father Flanagan is passing over my 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 101 

statement that my own experience did 
not prove that “spirits” perpetrate “silly 
tricks;” and that experience covers a 
period of many years. But even suppose 
they have thus done, it does not signify 
that it is an argument against Spirit¬ 
ualism. At most it would evidence, as 
I have already intimated, one of the 
accidents that occur in the path of 
human development. And they are not 
the rule by any means as he would have 
us infer. 

My reverend friend still harps upon 
what he calls the “hopeless differences” 
in the descriptions of the other world. 
He is evading my answer entirely; I 
said very plainly that “different stages 
of development, different temperaments 
and individuality, must be taken into 
consideration. On the essentials they 
are agreed, are the intelligent communi¬ 
cants, from the spirit world. They are 
emphatic in asserting there is no devia¬ 
tion from law—that each man must pay 
the full price of his conduct; that life in 
the other world is graded by the mental, 


102 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

moral and spiritual status of the indivi¬ 
duals entering therein. Being humans, 
as we are, they differ on many of the 
non-essentials; some of them do. 

We know when we are getting the 
right view when we receive that which 
is in harmony with every well defined 
law of life. We believe in natural law 
in the spiritual world. 

It is strange that Father Flanagan, 
with the disputes and differences of 
opinion, which still echo in the corridors 
of the history of the Catholic Church, 
would argue that a few differences of 
opinion, in description, invalidate the 
fundamentals of any religious system. 
There had not been a religion left stand¬ 
ing in the world not accepting his own, 
if that were true. We sift, weigh, 
analyze and test what we receive, and 
base our judgment upon the result. 

Father Flanagan objects to my state¬ 
ment, that much of the difficulty in 
communicating and establishing identity 
is due to the fact that we are yet in 
process of development. And he gives 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 103 

the impression that I said I did not 
claim perfection for the spirits. And 
yet he talks about quibbling. Any sane 
reader of my former letter will observe 
that I said: 

44 * * * according to the development 
of the media shall the communications 
be clear and lucid, or otherwiseand, 
44 * * * Difficulty in establishing identity 
is not a proof of the degeneration of the 
soul manifesting—it is evidence of the 
imperfection of the means of communi¬ 
cation, due at times to undue haste, 
to unnecessary eagerness and lack of 
development.” 

And Father Flanagan tells me “You 
are wrong, Rev. Erwood. The reliable 
and cautious scientists * * * have not 
committed themselves further than to 
declare that these phenomena must be 
attributed to intelligent agents. They 
do not assert, as you try to say they do, 
that they believe in the identity of the 
communicating spirit.” 

It is strange that Father Flanagan 
would say that, after tellirig us in his 


104 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

own lecture, that: “the only theory that 
covers all of the phenomena and is of any 
value to meet all the conditions of the 
problem was the spiritistic theory, and 
this is the one that is being increasingly 
adopted by science .” Here, again, Father 
Flanagan has coincided with our view. 

Now, my dear Father Flanagan, I do 
not “try to say” that many of the 
scientists accept the spiritualistic theory, 
but I say it flatly and unreservedly. Not 
all of them, yet, remember, but many. 
And, as you have said, they are “in¬ 
creasingly” adopting it. Space forbids 
many quotations, hence few must suffice 
for the present. 

Alfred Russel Wallace, scientist of 
world replete, says: “It, psychical re¬ 
search, further demonstrates, by direct 
evidence as conclusive as the nature of 
the case admits, that the so-called dead 
are alive—that our friends are often with 
us, though unseen, and can give direct 
proof of a future life which so many 
crave, but for want of which so many 
live and die in anxious doubt.” 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 105 

Sir Oliver Lodge has said: “If anyone 
cares to know what sort of conviction 
has been in upon my mind as a scientist 
by some twenty years’ familiarity with 
psychical research, I am for all personal 
purposes, convinced of the persistence of 
human existence beyond bodily death; 
and though I am not able to justify that 
belief in a full and complete manner, yet 
it is a belief which has been produced by 
scientific evidence.” 

I have quoted these men because they 
are cautious , and I might, Mr. Editor, 
fill your paper with the statements of the 
scientific men who, as Father Flanagan 
says, are “increasingly” adopting the 
spiritistic theory. Now let me say to 
our friend we are sure that our “dear 
dead friends” are present when they 
have proved their identity. 

Now, Father Flanagan quotes from 
M. Stainton Moses, to prove that 
“Spiritism” is manifestly antagonistic 
to the teaching of Scripture, and the 
divinity of Jesus Christ. I believe more 
divinity than Father Flanagan does. 


106 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

But, for his quotation, which follows, 
what of that? He quotes: 

“We would have you know that the 
spiritual idea of Jesus, the Christ, is no 
more like the human notion, with its 
accessories of atonement and redemption, 
as men have grasped them, than was the 
calf, ignorantly carved by the ancient 
Hebrews, like to God who strove to 
reveal Himself to them. ,, 

Father Flanagan would have us believe 
this antagonistic, because he does not 
realize the distinction between “the 
spiritual idea” and the human. Spirit¬ 
ualism teaches that mankind is saved by 
Christ in the same degree as they imbibe 
the Christ principle and become Christ- 
like. They teach emphatically the spir¬ 
itual aspect of the subject. 

Father Flanagan cannot close his letter 
without another fling in order to make 
folks believe we attacked him, and in 
reference to my mention of the Golden 
Rule, says: “Why did you not observe 
this rule; why did you through your 
agent challenge me to discuss Spiritism ?”* 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 107 


As a matter of fact I have been very 
careful thus to do. In the first place I 
knew nothing of the invitation extended 
to Father Flanagan to be present at our 
meeting until I landed in Moundsville; 
nor did I know he had lectured against 
Spiritualism in that city. 

But since Father Flanagan did give 
that lecture I commend my friend in 
Moundsville for inviting him and all 
others to attend the meeting. It was 
the only thing for him to do. And had 
my reverend brother been present he 
would have been better posted as to my 
position. 

Father Flanagan is very generous when 
he says: “ if you Spiritists are satisfied to 
be duped by lying spirits who masquerade 
as the souls of the dead, I have no quarrel 
with you on that score.” He has yet to 
prove that they are “lying spirits” mas¬ 
querading as our departed friends. And 
if he has no “quarrel” on that score he 
takes a strange way to prove it. 

I am glad he respects my “ conscience; ’ * 
and it was nice of him to add: “if you 


108 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

have one.” Perhaps mine would not 
suffer by comparison with his own. I 
assure him we do not question his right 
to “defend himself;” by no means, but 
the dear man must remember he is not 
alone in that right. 

I am truly grateful to Father Flanagan 
for thus making it possible for me to lay 
some plain truths before the people; it 
will do us no end of good to have the 
people take my letters and compare them 
with his own—it will make many people 
think, and when they begin to think 
they investigate Spiritualism; and when 
they investigate they espouse its theories. 
I am not sure but that is the very thing 
Father Flanagan fears. And as quickly 
as any further letters he may see fit to 
write can reach me I will give them 
their just due. 

Thanking you, Mr. Editor, for your 
generous courtesy, I am, 

Very truly yours, 

WlLIy J. Erwood. 
Wheeling, W. Va. June 26, 191L 


Letters on Spiritism 

The Echo believes that its readers have 
had opportunity to form conclusions one 
way or another on the matter of Spiritism 
or Spiritualism from the series of articles 
published during the past several weeks, 
and, further, local events are on the 
calendar in the near future that will 
doubtless require all our typesetting 
facilities, therefore we deem it fair all 
around to close the series after Rev. 
Father Flanagan replies to the two 
articles by Rev. Erwood, which are now 
here and will be published as soon as 
they are put in type. 


































1 

w 
























/ 








. u • 



































































































' 





















































Reply of Rev. Erwood 

Editor Moundsviele “Echo,” 

Dear Sir: 

Father Flanagan’s latest effusions are 
before me, one having reached on the 
night of the 4th, the other on the 5th. 
I make this brief explanation in defer¬ 
ence to my worthy opponent’s gentle 
and benevolent spirit; I note that Father 
Flanagan refuses to accept my delay in 
answering his former letters, to absence 
from the city, and assures the readers of 
the Echo that it required twelve to four¬ 
teen days to prepare an answer to his 
overwhelming (?) arguments. Of course 
there is no conceit in my reverend brother. 

And if he thought of me at all during 
that time it was only to view me “with 
a benevolence which hardly rises to the 
dignity of contempt.” Very tender and 
gentle of him; but I had no idea that his 
benevolence was strong enough to rise 
even that high. And I am glad he con- 


112 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

soles himself with the thought that even 
a “schoolboy” could easily see through 
the “hollowness” of my position, as he 
puts it. It is necessary for him to have 
some consolation, and as it takes but 
little to supply it, he might as well grasp 
at that straw as any other. 

Father Flanagan continues to ignore 
the fact of his own lecture as a beginning 
of the present controversy, and still carps 
about being singled out, etc. And he 
makes much of the announcement which 
appeared in the issue of the Echo for 
June 8, which he reproduces, and which 
I presume is correct, though I have not 
seen the paper. Referring to the state¬ 
ment that “Rev. Erwood will answer 
the questions recently propounded by 
Rev. Father Flanagan,” I have only this 
to say! I was not aware of such a notice 
being inserted in the paper. Any one 
with a grain of sense would know that 
had I been aware of such an announce¬ 
ment I would not have been foolish 
enough to deny it, nor to request him 
to produce the article in which such 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 113 

announcement was made. I would have 
conceded the fact that, even tho I knew 
nothing of the notice being printed, the 
public would have been justified in ex¬ 
pecting more attention to the questions 
than I gave them in the meeting. 

Father Flanagan makes so much of 
this lone point that he tries by personal 
abuse to divert attention from the quota¬ 
tions I made in my letter, and he comes 
forth with this: “If you were a fair 
controversialist you would not have lied 
to the gentleman who asked for the book, 
by telling him the book was out of print, 
and that he could not get it.” 

The only trouble with this point is 
that it is untrue: I did not say the hook 
was out of print I said I thought it was. 
Why? Because I was three years getting 
a copy of the book. I went to book 
store after book store, both Catholic and 
otherwise, asking for it, and finally found 
a second hand copy. Invariably I was 
told: “We cannot get it—it is out of 
print.” And this is not an unusual 
occurrence; only within a week I have 


114 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

secured a book after a search of five 
years. If asked about this, too, I would 
say: “out of print,” for thus it has been 
reported to me. 

My reverend friend prates about expos¬ 
ing the “fallacy of Spiritism,” and with a 
wave of his pen thinks he has disposed of 
the subject. But Father Flanagan has 
only “exposed” his own prejudice against 
the subject, and his eagerness to divert 
the attention of his flock, from this 
fascinatingly interesting subject. That 
is all he has exposed. 

In trying to dispose of my quotations 
from Father Gmeiner’s book, he says: 
“Rev. Erwood you should study the 
penny catechism of the Catholic doctrine 
before you undertake to explain the 
teachings of the Catholic Church.” 

My good friend does not know to 
whom he makes this remark. The first 
hook that I ever learned to read was a 
Catholic catechism. The Bible history 
was a companion, and I have been 
familiar with Catholic practice all of my 
life, for nearly every member of my 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 115 

family, on the maternal side, are mem¬ 
bers of the Catholic Church. I have 
listened to Father Conway expound the 
philosophy of that church. I have his 
“Question Box,” and the works of many 
other eminent priests of the Catholic 
Church. I am not unfamiliar with the 
Catholic doctrine. 

Father Flanagan says: “He would fain 
have men believe that the Catholic 
doctrine of the communion of saints, is 
about the same as his silly notions of the 
appearance of departed spirits.” And 
this is the way Father Flanagan tries to 
dispose of my quotations from Father 
Gmeiner’s book. He says: “There is no 
sense in your quotations from Father 
Gmeiner’s book. The words are truly 
the words of Father Gmeiner, but they 
prove nothing in favor of your position.” 

Do they not? Is there not any sense 
in the quotations? It would well behoove 
the Catholic Church to suppress Father 
Gmeiner’s book if there “is no sense” in 
the quotations I have made. I merely 
ask our readers to turn to my former 


116 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

letter and read again the quotations 
made. Let them decide as to their 
value. They do not uphold my position, 
says Father Flanagan, Indeed! What 
is my position? Briefly it is this: 

Death makes no break in the con¬ 
tinuity of individuality. The soul or 
spirit is actively conscious after death. 
There is no barrier to inter-communica¬ 
tion between the so-called dead and the 
living. The good and the bad, alike, 
may, under certain circumstances appear 
to the living and converse with them. 
They are at times fully aware of the 
conditions which obtain in our lives, and 
may warn us, guide us and minister unto 
us. Yea, and at times those evilly 
minded may seek to interfere with the 
even tenor of the lives of the living. 

The foregoing is the contention of 
Spiritualism. In the controversy I have 
stated the Catholic Church taught the 
same thing. Father Flanagan says my 
quotations do not prove that my con¬ 
tention is correct—he says there is “no 
sense in those quotations.” Yet other 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 117 


authorities of the church seem to think 
they mean something. Quoting again 
from Father Gmeiner’s book, “Spirits of 
Darkness/' page 248, we read a question 
and answer, they follow: 

“But must we therefor infer that 
there exists no real intercommunication 
between the living and the departed? 
That the spirits of the departed never 
manifest themselves to, or influence, 
their still living friends?’' 

The answer: “By no means. The 
church has always taught and believed 
in the communion of saints; that is of all 
true members of the church of Christ; of 
those who are still in the flesh, and of 
those who have departed this life in the 
friendship of God.” 

It would seem that Father Gmeiner 
believes that “intercommunication” 
means something more than just the 
“communication of spiritual blessings 
among the members of the church.” 
Another question follows on page 249 of 
the same book. It is this: 

“And why should not God, for good 


118 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

reasons, occasionally permit departed 
friends to manifest themselves to the 
living ?” 

“St. Thomas but expresses the con¬ 
viction of the church, when he says, ‘by 
special dispensation of God, the souls of 
the departed may take an active interest 
in the affairs of the living; and that, 
moreover, sometimes good angels may 
cause seeming apparitions of dead per¬ 
sons; of course not to deceive people, but 
to encourage, assist and warn them; or to 
obtain aid for such as are in purgatory.’ ” 

Father Flanagan concedes spiritual 
phenomena—or as he puts it, “spirit¬ 
istic” phenomena. He says he does not 
“ascribe all phenomena caused by spirits 
to the agency of evil spirits.” He does 
not deny that the “church and the Bible 
teach the existence of a spirit world.” 
He could not very well do it. Then he 
says: “This is not the question. It rests 
with you, Rev. Erwood, to prove that 
the spirits masquerading as the souls of 
departed friends are the intelligence they 
say they are.” 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 119 

On the contrary, Father Flanagan, it 
lies with you to prove that they are not 
what they say they are. For myself I 
have had ample proof of the reality of 
the intelligence, and of the identity of 
those friends who have manifested to me. 
But you, my dear sir, have asserted that 
the phenomena of Spiritualism were the 
works of demons, using the word in the 
limited sense in which you have used it. 
And you have not made out a case at all. 
There is naught but your assertions to 
bear you out. 

Manifestly the only fair thing for you 
to do, before you condemn, in wholesale, 
the phenomena and movement of Spirit¬ 
ualism, is to make a careful, conscien¬ 
tious and unbiased investigation. Father 
Flanagan seeks to dispose of the argu¬ 
ment by asserting that he, “had not 
time to spare to attend the farce which 
you and the medium who the ‘ spirit 
messages' paraded before the public as 
communications from beyond the grave; 
neither could you reasonably expect that 
I would lose time listening to the groans 


120 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

of your medium, or your own silly 
twaddle which you called a lecture.” 

Now, is that not a marvel of argumen¬ 
tative reasoning? Instead of answering 
my letter he springs the above on us. 
He characterizes what he did not hear 
as “groans” and “twaddle;” brave man 
—what a valorous champion of truth he 
is; what benevolence he displays! One 
fact remains: those to whom the com¬ 
munications were given acknowledged 
them to be correct. Yet he talks about 
“groans,” etc. I imagine the groans he 
heard must have been the groanings of 
his own spirit because of his ineffectual 
attempt to dispose of Spiritualism. 

And he adds further: “you cannot 
deny that much of your spiritistic rap- 
pings, whisperings, mysterious writings, 
etc., have been shown to be the result 
of deliberate fraud on the part of pro¬ 
fessional mediums.” I very cheerfully 
concede that; I know as well as Father 
Flanagan that frauds have brought odium 
upon the question from time to time. 
But no more so than in other organiza- 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 121 

tions. Nor does that fact prove the 
unreliability of all—nor yet does it dis¬ 
prove the validity of the main premises. 
And Spiritualists have frankly acknowl¬ 
edged the fact. 

Proceeding with his overwhelming argu¬ 
ment (?) Father Flanagan says: “If this 
has been the case with some of your 
greatest mediums we can well judge of 
what your obscure diviner had to offer.” 
And in the face of this Father Flanagan 
has the temerity to speak of “unscrupu¬ 
lous opponent.” 

Here'is his argument: because someone 
has been found guilty of fraud while 
posing as a Spiritualist, then, peradven- 
ture, the gentleman who accompanied 
me to Moundsville must be Classed in 
the same category. What a magnani¬ 
mous soul you are, to be sure, Father. 
You condemn, unheard, a man of whom 
and of whose work you know nothing. 

Can you not bring forth something 
better than this, Father Flanagan? Do 
you not know that you are not using 
argument at all. Now let me say: you 


122 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

cannot deny that “some professional 
priests” have been shown to be guilty of 
fraud, deliberate fraud. Shall I resort to 
your tactics and say as you: “if this has 
been the case with some of your priests 
we can well judge of what this obscure 
priest of Moundsville has to offer.” 

Shall I prejudge all of the Catholics 
of the world because some have been 
guilty of fraudulent practice. Shall I 
deny all the stories of the marvelous 
happenings in the lives of the “saints” 
of the Catholic Church because some of 
them are unreliable. Lingard, the Cath¬ 
olic historian, speaking of miracles, has 
this to say: 

“There are also many which must 
shrink from the frown of criticism; some 
which may have been the effect of 
accident or imagination; some that are 
more calculated to excite the smile than 
the wonder of the readers; and some 
which * * * depend on the distant testi¬ 
mony of writers but remarkable for sa¬ 
gacity or discrimination.’’ See ‘‘Conway’s 
Question Box,” page 547. 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 123 

Having read many of the accounts of 
these so-called miracles I can well testify 
to their power in provoking smiles rather 
than wonder. But, on the other hand, I 
have wondered how any man of intelli¬ 
gence could accept some of them. 

Now, my good friend hastens to assure 
us that the Catholic clergy are feeling 
no uneasiness over Spiritualism. And he 
goes on to declare: “She does not lower 
her flag for even the spirits of darkness, 
nor does she fear their willing dupes, the 
Spiritualists. In the years to come 
‘modern Spiritualism’ will be only recol¬ 
lected in name, like any of the other 
varieties of wickedness or folly, then the 
future ecclesiastical historian will write 
the thrilling record, namely, that of all 
the phases of irreligion ‘modern Spirit¬ 
ualism’ was the greatest humbug of any 
age.” 

Is that not a marvelous creation? 
I suppose I should tremble after this 
splendid (?) outburst. But somehow I 
cannot seem to feel a chill of apprehen¬ 
sion. We have been quite accustomed 


124 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

to such outbursts from the Father Flan¬ 
agan’s of the ages. They have prophe¬ 
sied the forgetting of numerous things— 
numerous movements, but the world 
seems to take them along just the same. 
Really his outburst looks like the after- 
math of a great fear—a fear that must 
have prompted the action of the second 
plenary council of Baltimore in advising 
Catholics to keep away from Spiritualism, 
and this was as far back as 1866. 

Father Flanagan talks of “furious 
antics and frenzied shrieks,” but we will 
let the readers of the paper look through 
our several articles for the “antics and 
frenzied shrieks,” and see to whom they 
belong. And my good friend tells how I 
“ride full tilt against ‘a portion of the 
finger of a dead Catholic’ only to find 
that the saints are friends of God, and 
their bones are worthy of respect.” 

He means that we find the Father 
Flanagan’s tell us that these “saints are 
the friends of God. We have but their 
word for it, and I am not sure that that 
is quite sufficient. He talks about evad- 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 125 

ing and shifting about, and accuses me 
of garbling. I wonder what he has done 
—where has he met any argument? 
What has he adduced to prove his own 
contention? 

What has he done other than to 
accuse me of nearly everything in the 
Calendar? And this because I refused 
to give him the name of the lady who 
quoted a priest; he knows full well how 
mightily unpleasant it might be for that 
lady should the priest in question have 
the same magnanimous (?) spirit as that 
displayed by my dear friend, Father 
Flanagan. And he says: “If the case 
you speak of was such a secret why did 
you make use of it on a public platform? ” 
He knows full well that it is no infrequent 
thing for a man in public life to be told 
of experiences such as the one related, 
and to be requested not to divulge the 
name of the person concerned. We find 
this true in the lives of the “saints”— 
and names have been withheld until 
after the death of, say, Anthony of 
Padua, et al. 


126 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

Now, Father Flanagan has had so 
much to say about Spiritualism and 
Spiritualists, will he tell me: 

In what is a Catholic superior to a 
Spiritualist? Is he any better morally? 
Does he make a better citizen? Does he 
prove to be a better neighbor? Is he a 
better parent? Of what does his superi¬ 
ority consist? And what does Catholi¬ 
cism give to us that is superior to Spirit¬ 
ualism? Let him bring forth his array of 
formidable facts if he has any. 

Tomorrow, Mr. Editor, I shall review 
Father Flanagan’s choice collection of 
epithets, as presented in his letter of 
July 3. In the meantime he might busy 
himself gathering up another supply to 
use in the absence of argument. 

Wiu, J. Erwood. 
Wheeling, W. Va., July 6, 1911. 


Rev. Flanagan Replies to Last 
Article by Rev. Erwood 

To the: Editor of the: “Echo,” 

De:ar Sir: 

The apostle of Spiritism has again 
spoken. He has served up for the 
readers of the Echo a meal, as foul with 
falsehood and calumny, as was ever 
offered in support of a starved-out 
creed. 

Though it seems a debasing of the 
mind further to refute the Spiritist’s 
ravings, I, nevertheless, propose to ex¬ 
amine his paragraphs, so far as they are 
relevant to the points at issue, and con¬ 
tain any semblance of common sense. 

Leaving aside the preamble of his 
letter—with its keynote of “cry-baby”— 
for it is too foolish and silly to deserve 
even a passing notice, I shall now con¬ 
sider what the Baltimore sciolist has 
to say regarding the announcement to 


128 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

answer my questions. Here are his 
words: 

‘‘And he makes much of the announce¬ 
ment which appeared in the issue of the 
Echo for June 8, which he reproduces, 
and which I presume is correct, though 
I have not seen the paper. Referring to 
the statement that ‘Rev. Erwood will 
answer the questions recently propounded 
by Rev. Father Flanagan,’ I have only 
this to say: I was not aware of such a 
notice being inserted in the paper. Any¬ 
one with a grain of sense would know 
that had I been aware of such an an¬ 
nouncement I would not have been 
foolish enough to deny it, nor to request 
him to produce the article in which such 
announcement was made. I would have 
conceded the fact that, even though I 
knew nothing of the notice being printed 
the public would have been justified in 
expecting more attention to the questions 
than I gave them in the meeting.” 

The above statement is something so 
inexpressibly sad in this poor man’s 
stupidity, that I almost feel towards 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 129 

him, a pity which masters indignation, 
and puts severity to flight. 

His dodging of the difficulty here 
recalls his patent medicine advertise¬ 
ment argument (?). And it is worth 
about as much. It indicates feverishness. 
I wonder what kind of nerve tonic the 
medium takes! His ofttime foolishness 
is fast flowing into downright imbecility, 
and his attempt now to get out of the 
pit he dug for himself, exhibits him in 
the last stages of mental decrepitude. 

In the words above quoted, your 
readers, Mr. Editor, have as good a 
sample of the wizard’s elaborate and 
subtle reasoning as can possibly be given. 
Here I am irresistibly reminded of the 
crushing words of inspiration: “Out of 
thy own mouth I judge thee, thou 
wicked servant.” 

The announcement of June 8, which I 
reproduced in my letter of July 1, has 
staggered Rev. W. J. Erwood, pastor of 
the First Spiritualist Church of Balti¬ 
more, Md. He declares that anyone 
with a grain of sense would know that 


130 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

had he been aware of the announcement, 
he would not have been foolish enough 
to deny it, etc. In a recent letter he 
denied my statement about the announce¬ 
ment, now he admits that he denied it 
without knowing what he was talking 
about. And this is the man who dares 
to pose as a fair and honest controver¬ 
sialist! This is the spiritistic windbag 
who has such high ideas of “ministerial 
dignity.” 

“Anyone with a grain of sense” Rev . 
Erwood , “would know” that if you had a 
grain of sense , and wished to he honest 
and fair , you would not have denied the 
appearance of the announcement , before 
you investigated the matter. 

The magician next tries to justify his 
conduct when he was asked for the name 
of the author of the book he quoted 
during his lectures. He says he did not 
say Father Gmeiner’s book was out of 
print, but he thought it was. The 
parties who demanded the name of the 
author of the book maintain that he did 
say, the book was out of print. 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 131 

Moreover, it is not so difficult to get 
a copy of Father Gmeiner’s book. Any 
Catholic publisher will be glad to procure 
it for anyone who wishes to purchase it. 
Again, why was it necessary to demand 
the name of the author of the book from 
Rev. Erwood? Why was he not honest 
enough to give the name of the writer 
he cited? The fact is, the medium was 
garbling Father Gmeiner, and tried to 
make him teach doctrines which he 
repudiated. 

Rev. Mr. Erwood thinks I only 
exposed my prejudice against “Spirit¬ 
ualism” instead of exposing Spiritism. 
I have no doubt about the verdict the 
readers of the Echo have arrived at, as 
to what has been exposed in the present 
controversy. 

With his usua disgusting folly and 
impertinence; the necromancer lies again 
to avade the issue, saying: 

“In trying to dispose of my quotations 
from Father Gmeiner’s book he says: 

‘ Rev. Erwood, you should study the 
penny catechism of the Catholic doctrine 


132 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

before you undertake to explain the 
teachings of the Catholic Church. ,,, 

When I wrote the words, quoted by 
Mr. Erwood, I was not disposing of his 
quotations from Father Gmeiner’s book, 
as anyone will easily see by turning to 
my letter which was published in the 
Echo of July 1. But I was taking the 
medium to task for giving a false view of 
the Catholic doctrine of the communion 
of saints. Later on I disposed of his 
quotations from Father Gmeiner. I told 
him to study the penny catechism before 
he undertook to expound Catholic doc¬ 
trines. To this he replied: 

“My good friend does not know to 
whom he makes this remark. The first 
book that I ever learned to read was a 
Catholic catechism. The Bible History 
was a companion, and I have been 
familiar with Catholic practice all of my 
life, for nearly every member of my 
family on the maternal side, are members 
of the Catholic Church. I have listened 
to Father Conway expound the philos¬ 
ophy of that church, I have his “Ques- 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 133 

tion Box,” and the works of many other 
eminent priests of the Catholic Church. 
I am not unfamiliar with the Catholic 
doctrines.” 

The first book you, Mr. Erwood, 
learned to read was a Catholic catechism, 
forsooth! If this is true, then it is sadly 
apparent from your explanation of the 
doctrine of the communion of saints, 
that you never understood what you 
read in the catechism. But the fault 
lies not with your teachers who taught 
you the catechism, for they did not 
profess to give brains when you did not 
possess them. If you had them, they 
would have developed them so that you 
could understand what you read in the 
catechism. 

And you have listened to Father 
Conway expound Catholic philosophy, 
and you have the works of other eminent 
priests. Indeed! Have you? Well it is 
not the fault of Father Conway, or the 
other eminent priests, if you are yet 
densely ignorant of Catholic teachings, 
for even the renowned Paulist lecturer, 


134 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

Father Conway, and all the eminent 
priests this world ever knew, could not 
in the words of a great writer, “make 
a silk purse of a sow’s ear.” 

Again I advise Mr. Erwood to make 
himself acquainted with the first prin¬ 
ciples of Catholic teachings, of which he 
has shown himself so profoundly ignorant, 
even though the first book he learned to 
read was a Catholic catechism. I also 
recommend that he devote at least 
twenty-five years to the diligent study 
of the penny catechism, and mean¬ 
while refrain from trying to explain 
the elementary points of Catholic faith. 
Judging from his letters it will take him 
about a quarter of a century before he 
can master the eight or ten pages of the 
penny catechism. If he takes to heart 
my admonitions, they will save him 
from the renewal of the disgrace and 
humiliation brought upon him by his 
ignorance of the Catholic doctrine of 
the communion of saints. 

Rev. Erwood holds up his hands in 
protesting horror because I said his 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 135 


quotations from Father Gmeiner’s book, 
which formed a great part of his letter, 
were not to the point. If your readers, 
Mr. Editor, will read again Rev. Erwood’s 
letter of June 27, and my reply thereto 
of July 1, they will then see for them¬ 
selves of what shameless and deliberate 
mendacity, relative to the quotations the 
medium has rendered himself guilty. 

Following his custom, my opponent 
again fills up his letter with quotations 
from Father Gmeiner’s “Spirits of Dark¬ 
ness/' but, as usual, they are not to the 
point and prove nothing, except his 
deliberate attempt to misrepresent. I am 
in perfect accord with Father Gmeiner’s 
doctrine, but not in the way Rev. Erwood 
has distorted it. To show how outra¬ 
geously wicked and malicious the spiritist 
can be in his disregard of all logic, and 
his violation of all the laws of manly 
and straight forward polemic, I ask 
the readers of the Echo to consider the 
following: 

“Father Flanagan concedes Spiritual 
phenomena—or, as he puts it, ‘ spiritistic ’ 


136 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

phenomena. He says, he does not ‘ ascribe 
all phenomena caused by spirits to the 
agency of evil spirits/ He does not deny 
that the ‘church and the Bible teach 
the existence of a spirit world/ He 
could not very well do it. Then he says: 
‘This is not the question. It rests with 
you, Rev. Erwood, to prove that the 
spirits masquerading as the souls of 
departed friends are the intelligences 
they say they are/ 

“On the contrary, Father Flanagan, it 
lies with you to prove that they are not 
what they say they are. For myself I 
have ample proof of the reality of the 
intelligence, and of the identity of those 
friends who have manifested to me. But 
you, my dear sir, have asserted that the 
phenomena of Spiritualism were the works 
of demons, using the word in the limited 
sense in which you have used it. And 
you have not made out a case at all. 
There is naught but your assertions to 
bear you out.” 

The cowardice here displayed by Rev. 
Erwood in thus sneaking out of a diffi- 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 137 

culty, instead of manfully meeting it, 
forcefully emphasizes the character, con¬ 
troversial methods, and blatant dishon¬ 
esty of my Spiritistic opponent. 

He says, it lies with me to prove that 
the spirits masquerading as the souls of 
departed friends at Spiritistic seances, 
are not what they say they are. Let 
us examine this question and see on 
whom the burden of proof rests. In the 
Echo of June 3, the Spiritists challenged 
me to ask questions on “Spiritualism.” 
In my first letter, published June 6, 
among other questions I asked, why is 
it so difficult to establish the identity 
of the manifesting intelligences? The 
medium tried to answer this question as 
well as some of the others I proposed. 
He did not succeed. He resorted to all 
kinds of maneuvers, lies, calumnies and 
tricks, to evade the difficulty. He tried 
to lead the readers of the Echo away 
from the point by multiplying quota¬ 
tions from Father Gmeiner’s book abso¬ 
lutely alien to the question in hand. I 
tracked him through all his wanderings. 


138 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

I kept his nose to the grindstone, and 
now after writing a series of several 
letters, he virtually admits he cannot 
answer my question or prove his own 
thesis. He started out to prove, in 
answer to my question, how to establish 
the identity of the spirits communicating 
at Spiritistic seances, and now ends by 
saying to me, you prove it. 

I proved, in my lecture, that the 
difficulty of satisfactorily establishing the 
identity of the spirits communicating 
was universally admitted by all expert 
inquirers, and also by all experienced 
and fair-minded Spiritists. The Spiritists 
assailed my position. They challenged 
me to ask questions. I did so. Their 
champion did not successfully answer 
even one of my questions. Now when 
pressed for an answer to one of the 
questions, he skulks and hides behind 
the dark fence of such bolderdash as 
this, “Father Flanagan it lies with you 
to prove, etc.” 

The medium goes on with his noisy 
nonsense, he is evidently much hurt 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 139 

about what I said concerning his lecture 
and the groans of his medium. He says, 
“The fact remains; those to whom the 
communications were given acknowledged 
them to be correct.” Do not be so sure, 
Mr. Erwood. Some denied the truth of 
the communications. Many who attended 
the meeting, declared your spirit messages 
to be downright fraud. At any rate, 
judging from the accounts given by 
intelligent people, other than Spiritists, 
who attended your meetings, I believe 
I lost nothing by not attending your 
rendition of Mother Goose’s Melodies. 

Whilst treating of this phase of the 
medium’s letter, I noticed that he very 
carefully avoids answering my question 
which I asked in my last letter regarding 
the person who said I would attend his 
meetings. There is little else in the 
Spiritistic minister’s communication that 
rises above the jargon of the inmates of 
an insane asylum. I wish, however, to 
direct attention to one more statement 
of his. It is as follows: “What has he 
done other than to accuse me of nearly 


140 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

everything in the Calendar? And this 
because I refused to give him the name 
of the lady who quoted the priest; he 
knows full well how mightily unpleasant 
it might be for that lady should the priest 
in question have the same magnanimous 
(?) spirit as that displayed by my dear 
friend, Father Flanagan. And he says, 
'If the case you speak of was such a 
secret why did you make use of it on a 
public platform?’ He knows full well 
that it is no infrequent thing for a man 
in public life to be told of experiences 
such as the one related, and to be 
requested not to divulge the name of 
the person concerned. We find this true 
in the lives of the ‘Saints,’ and names 
have been withheld until after the death 
of, say, Anthony of Padua, et al.” 

Here the soothsayer is evidently ill 
at ease because of my liberal use of the 
“shillalah.” In this discussion I asked 
no quarter from my opponent—I will 
give none. On him I will have no mercy, 
controversially speaking, and I have 
about as much sympathy for him, as 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 141 


the great St. Paul had for “Alexander 
the Coppersmith” for whom he desired 
“a reward according to his works.” He 
has maligned the Catholic Church. He 
has misrepresented her teachings. The 
duty of speaking out in defense of my 
position on Spiritism has been cast upon 
me. I have only defended my views 
when attached. I have given the true 
Catholic teachings, as opposed to Rev. 
Erwood’s mere Spiritistic vagaries. 

He says I know full well that it is no 
infrequent thing for a man in public life 
not to divulge the names, etc. I know 
full well that this is only a subterfuge of 
yours, and that the statement you made 
about a priest advising a lady to continue 
to be a Spiritist, is foully false. 

In your issue of July 11, Mr. Editor, 
Rev. Erwood promised another letter. 
As soon as it appears I shall consider it. 
In the meantime I beg to assure him that 
I have yet in store a “choice collection” 
of epithets for his future consideration. 

F. J. Flanagan. 

Moundsville, W. Va., July 12> 1911. 

































. 

















. 


























* 













































































Rev. ErwootTs Final Article 
on Spiritualism 

Editor Moundsville “Echo,” 

Dear Sir: 

In his letter of July 3, my good friend, 
Father Flanagan, has wielded his facile 
pen to no other purpose than to display 
a choice collection of epithets behind 
which cloudy products he thinks to con¬ 
ceal his failure to dispose of Spiritualism. 

Examination of his letter will show 
but little that can lay claim to reasonable 
argument; the main stock in trade of my 
gentle brother is such ill-chosen similes 
as one would expect to find in the 
vocabulary of a stevedore, rather than 
in the usage of one who occupies the 
high pinnacle of Catholic placidity and 
gentleness upon which Father Flanagan 
is supposed to rest. 

And after Father Flanagan has carried 
his tirade thru four columns of the Echo 


144 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

he blares forth with this: “Why do you 
sally out to break lances with other 
people’s windmills, etc.” Really, I have 
had a suspicion from the very first that 
my lance was meeting nothing but a 
“windmill,” but I feared my good friend 
would not admit it as readily as he has. 
Now I observe that that “windmill” is 
so very intangible that there is small 
danger of my “lance” being broken. 
Come again, Father. 

It is singular that a man who must 
make use of the terminology that per¬ 
vades his effusions would accuse anyone 
of “quibbling, sophistry, equivocations, 
etc.,” for his whole effort is to cast 
odium upon Mr. Erwood and Spirit¬ 
ualism. And to do this he resorts to 
tactics and language that he would 
scarce utilize if facing a man. Hiding 
behind his clerical garb and sanctimo¬ 
nious office he finds no better weapons 
than these: “conjuror, reviler, senility, 
like a malicious hag, black arts, sophist, 
green gooseberry, ignoble brow, etc.” 
Dear readers, is this not a choice collec- 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 145 

tion to emanate from one who supposes 
himself to be in the line of apostolic 
succession? 

And in his attempt to get out of the 
matter he talks about “odds and ends 
of quotations from Father Gmeiner’s 
‘ Spirits of Darkness; ’ ” I can well imagine 
that those “odds and ends” cause him 
no little annoyance, for they present a 
phase of the discussion that he cannot 
get around. 

Now he tells me: “Yes, the Catholic 
Church does teach that the souls of the 
dead may return. I never denied this. 
It is idle and foolish in you, Mr. Erwood, 
to insinuate that I did. I did not say 
that it was only in the Catholic Church 
that good spirits may appear, etc.” 
Here my reverend friend makes an 
admission that is quite worthy. He 
admits that the return of good spirits is 
not confined to the Catholic Church. No, 
Father, there is no need to remind me 
that you did not say that in so many 
words, but it is there. 

Then Father Flanagan informs us that 


146 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

“it is very seldom, generally speaking, 
that God permits the return to this 
earth of departed spirits.’’ Is it so, 
indeed? We are grateful for the infor¬ 
mation—but, I pray you, sir, will you 
give us the source of that knowledge. 
How do you know that this is a seldom 
occurrence? If the return of spirits is 
such a rare thing, how is it that there 
are so many records of such phenomena 
in the lore of the Catholic Church. 

Reading the lives of the “Saints,” it 
would appear that such a return was 
not only a daily, but an hourly occur¬ 
rence. Here then is the question: If the 
return of the dead is admitted to be a 
fact; if it is conceded that the return of 
“good spirits” is not confined to the 
Catholic Church, what right has Father 
Flanagan, or any other prominent or 
obscure priest, to assert that Spiritualism 
is in its entirety the work of demons of 
evil propensity? 

Father Flanagan uses the same kind 
of argument against Spiritualism as that 
used against Jesus, John the Baptist, and 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 147 

the Apostles, viz.: “they are possessed 
of devils.” And with this he thinks the 
matter settled entirely. 

He is still talking about Hudson 
Tuttle’s admission that there had been 
unpleasant experiences in his early me- 
diumship, and says that I evade the 
issue when I considered Mr. Tuttle’s 
admission as no argument against Spirit¬ 
ualism. He devotes nearly a column of 
the paper to this—he is eager to have 
the people think he has made out a case. 
But he has failed dismally. He says: “I 
was proving that Spiritism was fraught 
with dangers.” Continuing he says: 

“I proved it by Hudson Tuttle’s 
experiences, Rev. Erwood cannot deny 
this * * * it is not a question of whether 
Tuttle did or did not at any time commit 
suicide or kill, but the point we are 
considering is that the evil spirits had 
such influence over him that it was with 
difficulty that he escaped suicide on one 
occasion and murder on another. If 
Spiritism was so dangerous for Mr. 
Hudson Tuttle is it less so for others?” 


148 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 


Father Flanagan thinks this to be 
prima facie evidence of the sweepingly 
dangerous nature of Spiritualism. Does 
he not see that such a flimsy argument as 
that would effectually dispose of his own 
dogma? Does he think it has only been 
the “Hudson Tuttles” of Spiritualism 
who have thus experienced temptation? 
If there is any argument in such a 
position where would you be, Father 
Flanagan? 

The choicest “saints” in the constantly 
increasing number in the Catholic Church 
have been the most grievously tempted. 
Father Flanagan objects to my quota¬ 
tion from Father Gmiener, in which is 
incorporated a quotation from the author 
of the “Following of Christ,” proving 
that even the “saints” were subjected 
to all kinds of difficulty, and tempted in 
every way. This despite the fact that 
they were Catholics, and on the high 
road to “saintship.” Father Flanagan, 
no doubt would say, “God was merely 
testing them.” Is it necessary to quote 
specific instances, Father? 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 149 

When discussing the matter he says: 
“Off the track again, Mr. Erwood, this 
only proves that we have enough to do 
to avoid temptations, without exposing 
ourselves to them unnecessarily.” Don’t 
mislead yourself, Father, I am still on 
the track. Your arguments are so “over¬ 
whelming” (?) that you are the only one 
they will overwhelm. And while you 
may succeed in making yourself think 
you have made a point, you will not 
thus mislead others. 

The only thing Father Flanagan proved 
by his quotation was that Mr. Tuttle 
related an experience that might come 
in the life of anyone, at any time, my 
reverend opponent not excepted. If 
Father Flanagan could prove that every 
Spiritualist was thus beset, if he could 
prove that every intelligence who mani¬ 
fests in the seance room works evil, if 
he could demonstrate that Spiritualism 
does have a deleterious effect on the 
lives of those who espouse its principles, 
then he might have a case. But as it is 
he is simply hurling boomerangs—and 


150 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

they are stinging himself more than 
they do us. 

What does Hudson Tuttle’s authorship 
of books, ethically instructive prove? 
This: that Hudson Tuttle’s mediumship, 
or his few unpleasant experiences did 
not affect the moral, mental or spiritual 
nature of the man, nor prevent him from 
trying to add to the sum of spiritual 
and moral culture. 

Now Father Flanagan accuses me of 
attempting to divert the attention of the 
readers from his arguments—the “over¬ 
whelming force (?) of my arguments,” he 
says. And he declares: “ the sophisticator 
utters a lachrymose jeremiade, and like 
a whipped schoolboy, condemns Dr. 
Raupert on the slender testimony of 
having lectured against Spiritism under 
the auspices of Catholic institutions.” 
Bright argument that. (?) Let the 
readers turn to what I said of Dr. Raupert 
they will see I simply called attention to 
a fact that Father Flanagan was careful 
not to reveal. 

The trouble with Father Flanagan, 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 151 

probably, is that he has mainly had to 
do with “whipped schoolboys,” and has 
been in the habit of dictating to such 
without fear of contradiction. He is 
trying the same tactics here, and he 
quotes a few more passages from Dr. 
Raupert’s book as evidence of his claims. 
He is simply threshing over old straw; 
we admit there have been dangers—that 
there is danger in everything. 

Rev. Flanagan seems to think that 
his quotation from the “Dangers of 
Spiritualism,” by Godfrey Raupert, and 
his citations from the works of Hudson 
Tuttle and M. Stainton Moses, have 
effectually proved Spiritualism a mani¬ 
festly dangerous thing, and of demoniac 
origin. I am surprised at him resting 
upon such untenable ground. How many 
instances of like character we might 
quote against his own church. 

Father Flanagan, in what is intended 
to be his most crushing manner, asks: 
“Are you still under the influence of the 
patent medicine advertised in the Wheel¬ 
ing Calendar? or have you changed from 


152 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

Koenig’s Tonic to Peruna?” Is that not 
a splendid effort for my friend to make? 
Poor Father Flanagan. If only as small 
amount of “tonic” of any description 
passes his lips as finds its way through 
mine, he is a lucky man. I am afraid 
that Father Koenig’s Nerve Tonic, adver¬ 
tised in the Calendar , and endorsed by 
Father Riorden, has gotten the better of 
Father Flanagan’s nerves. 

Now we have Rev. Flanagan admit¬ 
ting that some of the greatest scientists 
believe in the spirit hypothesis. “I am 
well aware of the fact,” he adds, “that 
men of great reputation, as scientists, 
have given their testimony in favor of 
the reality of Spiritualistic phenomena. 
This is not the question. I never dis¬ 
puted this.” Yet we have him recently 
asserting that the cautious scientists did 
not commit themselves to the point of 
belief in the identity of the communica¬ 
ting spirit. At present he concedes that 
some of the “greatest” scientists believe 
our hypothesis. 

Father Flanagan chortles with glee 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 153 

over my quotations from Alfred Russel 
Wallace and Sir Oliver Lodge. And he 
gets off a poor sort of fulmination about 
“neglected pupils of a poorly conducted 
kindergarten, etc.” There may have 
been something wrong with my earliest 
experiences at school—indeed I have 
sometimes felt there was, since I received 
them in a school which was directly 
under the supervision of a man some¬ 
thing like Father Flanagan seems to 
be—a man of his own faith and cloth. 
If there is deficiency it is due to the 
“ poorly conducted kindergarten ’ ’ to 
which my parents were unwise enough 
to send me. 

I have fully expected that Father 
Flanagan would take the position he 
does—it runs in line with his type of 
mind and his school of thought; what 
he and his ilk cannot answer they 
attribute to “devils, senility, to wizards 
and witches to conjurors and black art.” 
If my friend was as voluble in other 
lines as he is in making use of his pet 
epithets he might accomplish greater 


154 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

good than he can under the present 
condition of his mind. 

Taking advantage of a slight typo¬ 
graphical error he thinks he has dis¬ 
posed of my Wallace quotation. There 
was no question embodied in Prof. 
Wallace’s statement. That statement 
was: “It, physical research, further demon¬ 
strates, by direct evidence as conclusive as 
the nature of the case admits that the so- 
called dead are alive—that our friends are 
often with us, though unseen, and can give 
direct proof of a future life which so many 
crave, but for want of which so many live 
and die in anxious doubt” 

There is no “if” in the above quota¬ 
tion, though thru a slight typographical 
error the word “if” was inserted in 
place of “it;” so also in my quotation 
concerning the Catholic Church there is 
a slight error, to wit: “It is singular 
that a church which has so much lore 
concerning the dead and their interest 
in the living, etc.” The word “lore” 
was rendered “more” 

Father Flanagan tells us: “Inconsist- 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 155 


ency thou art a jewel, but only in the eyes 
of Rev. Erwood and his Spiritists.’’ But 
he fails to point out the inconsistency; 
his argument is about this: “All men 
who live in Moundsville are honest men; 
those who live elsewhere are dishonest.” 
He is the man who is inconsistent, he has 
hugged the asp of inconsistency to the 
breast so zealously that he is unable to 
see it is stinging him to the death. 

Father Flanagan admits spirit phe¬ 
nomena; he admits the dead can return; 
he concedes that men who have gone to 
heaven, and some who have not attained 
to that height, do return. His church 
lore teems with account after account of 
instances of this character; the greatest 
man in the Catholic Church in America, 
James, Cardinal Gibbons, exclaims: “O, 
far be from us the dreary thought that 
death cuts off our friends entirely from 
us,” etc. The “Faith of Our Fathers,” 
page 156. 

Before me as I write are four different 
publications of the Catholic Church, 
viz: The Calendar , the Ave Maria , St . 


156 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

Anthony's Monthly , the Souvenir Year 
Book , of St. Bernard’s Church in Balti¬ 
more ; in addition to these numerous 
“lives” of the “Saints;” and in every 
one of these, with one single exception, 
are to be found one or more accounts of 
the return of men and women, from 
either purgatory or heaven, to the deni¬ 
zens of earth. All of this he admits, 
does Father Flanagan. 

Then he admits that the return of 
“good spirits” is not confined to the 
Catholic Church; he believes in the all¬ 
wisdom of God; in his omnipotence and 
omniscience, as well as omnipresence; he 
believes that God is changeless; that the 
same divine rule obtains today as of 
yore; he believes in spiritual gifts; he 
believes in the statement accredited to 
Jesus: “These things that I do so shall 
ye also,” etc. He believes: “That which 
hath been is now; and that which is to 
be hath already been; and God requireth 
that which is past.” Eccles. III. 

All of this Father Flanagan believes 
and admits, yet in the face of it all he 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 157 

comes to us with the warped statement: 
“It is perfectly conformable then, to the 
teaching of reason, to conclude that evil 
spirits or demons are the agents of all 
such effects in Spiritism which cannot be 
attributed to human power. “Inconsist¬ 
ency” thou hast so thoroughly absorbed 
my Brother Flanagan that the spirit of 
inanity hath builded her throne in his 
dwarfed and feeble mind; remove the 
scales from his eyes, I pray thee, that he 
may see that the sun still shines without 
and that truth has not been concealed in 
musty tombs and cloistered cells. 

After conceding so much as he has, 
Father Flanagan gets off this despairing 
cry: “But I do defy you to prove that 
the authors of the spiritistic wonders 
are really the spirits of the departed 
friends they say they are.” He talks 
about “lachrymose jeremiades,” but ’twas 
the rebounding echo of the last wail of a 
dying hope which reverberated through 
the walls of his consciousness, that super¬ 
induced his tearful lamentation. It is 
small wonder that Rev. Flanagan must 


158 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

run to a “green gooseberry” patch to 
find a simile small enough to come within 
the scope of his narrow comprehension. 

Can you, Father Flanagan, prove that 
these be not the spirits of our departed 
friends? How will you go about it? 
Did you not make the opening attack 
on Spiritualism in your lecture? How 
have you sustained your theory? You 
must indeed bring forth better than you 
have thus far produced to make even a 
remote approach to success. 

And what is your actual experience 
with the subject—to what extent have 
you come in personal contact with these 
phenomena and the people who accept 
them. 

If Father Flanagan could only see it 
Spiritualism is the best friend humanity 
has when it comes to the demonstration 
of some of the very things he would have 
mankind believe. Spiritualism has been, 
and is the enemy of materialism—it has 
been successful in bringing many a man 
from materialism who could not be reached 
by the Father Flanagans of the world. 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 159 


Prof. Robert Hare is a good example 
of the extent to which Spiritualism has 
defeated materialism. Prof. Hare was 
a sincere but inveterate disbeliever of 
Christianity; he doubted immortality, 
the existence of a God, etc. He investi¬ 
gated Spiritualism; he found phenomena 
which carried with them proof of identity. 
And he reasoned: “If my sister lives, as 
she has proven to me, I shall live also, 
and there is an immortality, and if an 
immortality, there must be—there is a 
God.” And he added: “I believe in 
revelation, and in a revelation through 
Jesus of Nazereth I am a Christian.” 

Possibly Father Flanagan would not 
have a man converted to a practical 
Christianity through any other channel 
than his own church. Prof. Challis, of 
Cambridge, has said: “* * * the testimony 
has been so abundant and consentaneous, 
that either the facts must admitted to be 
such as are reported, or the possibility 
of certifying facts by human testimony 
must be given up.” 

There is but one way to prove such 


160 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

phenomena—to prove anything for that 
matter. Perhaps ’twere better to say 
there are three ways of disposing of a 
given subject. They are: First—To ridi¬ 
cule, or laugh it out of court. Second— 
To denounce it in toto as either inimical 
to human welfare, the work of devils or 
insane vagary. Third—* * * and this 
is obviously the only just way—to in¬ 
vestigate carefully, conscientiously and 
sincerely. Now, reader, which is the 
way you will follow? 

Father Flanagan is wedded to the first 
two methods of procedure, hence he is 
trying to scare people away with his 
denunciations, his quotations from Dr. 
Raupert’s book—which one has only to 
read to see the motive back of the whole 
thing—and several citations from works 
of Spiritualist authors who have frankly 
admitted a few unpleasant experiences. 

Father Flanagan says: “Will my ex¬ 
ponent of Spiritualism dare assert that 
the average Spiritistic ‘sitter’ does not 
deitffend of the medium an indiscriminate 
use of psychic powers?” Indeed I dare 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 161 

assert that very thing Father Flanagan. 
The average Spiritualistic “sitter” does 
not demand of the medium an indis¬ 
criminate use of psychic power. The 
“Spiritualist sitter” knows better than 
to do so. Those who are in the habit 
of demanding an “indiscriminate use of 
psychic power” are usually people who 
have been trained on the “fairy pabu¬ 
lum” you feed them concerning the 
miracles, etc., in the lives of your “saints/ 
dead and otherwise. 

We know that not all Spiritualists 
have learned thus much, but the average 
Spiritualist has, and asks no unreason¬ 
able or indiscriminate use of psychic 
power. Would you dare assert that 
there are no abuses of your own usages, 
not excepting any of them? 

When men doubt immortality they 
come to Spiritualism to get proof of its 
reality; they do not go to Father Flanagan 
for evidence. And there are probably 
more people out of the Catholic Church 
investigating, and becoming convinced 
of the truth of Spiritualism, than from 


162 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

any other. We do not ask that they 
stultify reason—we ask them to use it; 
we do not ask them to accept everything 
that purports to be spiritual phenomena, 
superinduced by the discarnate friends 
of humanity—we ask them to test the 
phenomena, and demand proof of iden¬ 
tity, etc. 

Spiritualism lays stress upon the neces¬ 
sity of character building—it teaches 
that each person must suffer for his 
transgression; that there is no evasion 
of that law. It urges spiritual unfold- 
ment—real unfoldment; it is humani¬ 
tarian—Spiritualists have been uniformly 
moved to participate in progressive and 
humanitarian work. All along the line 
of human progression will be found, well 
in the vanguard, men and women who 
have been, and are ardent Spiritualists. 

Then Father Flanagan speaks of con¬ 
ceit, and says: “Who gave you authority, 
Medium Erwood, to thrust forward your 
fallible judgment, your warped and weak 
reason, your little notions, your uncharit¬ 
able heart, your hungry creed, and your 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 163 

rule of conduct, dictated by the spirits 
of darkness, as the standard of the 
great world’s life?” 

Who gave me the right to speak, 
Father? The eternal law which gives to 
every man the right to defend himself 
and those he loves from the cowardly 
and arrogant egotists who, in their in¬ 
flated self adoration, and their petty 
conception of the infinite order of things, 
take it upon themselves to villify and 
abuse that which does not come within 
the scope of their contracted purview. 

And you, Father Flanagan, a priest of 
the Catholic Church, talk to me about: 
“little notions, hungry creed, warped 
and weak reason, fallible judgment,” etc. 
And all of this after the inane display 
you have given us in your supposed 
“critiques;” you talk about “hypocrisy 
and ignoble brows.” Better carry a 
mirror until you have learned “to know 
thee as thou art.” You talk of all of 
this after having displayed every one of 
these qualities, in your effusions.. Be 
good enough to examine those letters of 


164 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

yours and discover to us your “ charitable 
heart and mighty reason.” 

Who gives me the authority to “ thrust 
forward” my opinions? The law which 
guarantees to us, through the constitu¬ 
tion, the right to defend our religion 
from the attacks of a man, who, if his 
charitable (?) heart might have its wish 
would, no doubt, eliminate, not only 
Spiritualism but many other religious 
movements from the arena of human life. 

Should my good friend contribute 
further choice collections of epithets, of 
which he no doubt has still an abundant, 
unused supply, I shall be glad to give 
them whatever of attention they may 
merit. Thanking you, Mr. Editor, for 
your courtesy, I am, 

Yours for human progress, 

Winn J. Erwood. 
Wheeling, W. Va., July 8. 


Rev. Flanagan Closes the 
Discussion on Spiritism 

To the Editor of the “Echo,” 

Dear Sir: 

When St. Jude described certain 
teachers as “raging waves of the sea 
foaming out their own confusion/' he 
must have had in prophetic view the 
Pastor of the First Spiritualist Church of 
Baltimore, Md., and some such exhibition 
as that contained in your columns of last 
Saturday. The prince of garblers and 
tergiversators grows more surprising 
every day. No one who has read his 
last letter can help seeing his malignity 
and meanness, platitude and perversity, 
decrepitude of cankered intelligence and 
desperation of humiliated vanity. In 
the first four paragraphs of his letter 
of July 15, the sweet-tempered medium 
appeals to his “dear readers” for sym¬ 
pathy. In very weariness of spirit he 


166 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

complains of my “choice collection of 
epithets.” The gist of his wailings may 
be reduced to the following: 

“Hiding behind his clerical garb and 
sanctimonious office he finds no better 
weapons than these ‘conjuror, reviler, 
senility, like a malicious hag, black arts, 
sophist, green gooseberry, ignoble brow,' 
etc. Dear readers, is this not a choice 
collection to emanate from one who sup¬ 
poses himself to be in line of apostolic 
succession?” 

If in my letters I have used strong 
language I think all fair-minded readers 
of the Echo will agree that I have 
received provocation. 

Who commenced the offensive in this 
discussion? Turn to my first letter of 
June 6. Is there one obligation imposed 
on me and quite another on Mr. Erwood? 
My opponent was the first to descend 
from the platform of courteous language 
to the floor of personalities. I have met 
him there— 


Dareful, beard to beard, 

And beat him backward home.” 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 167 

I do not intend to defend the propriety 
of every expression I may have used in 
my letters, but at the same time I am 
not prepared to apologize for any. If 
my Spiritistic friend now finds his plumage 
much ruffled, he brought it upon himself. 

I have only carried out the determina¬ 
tion I expressed in my letter of July 14, 
to apply the words of the wisest of men, 
“Answer a fool according to his folly, 
lest he imagines himself to be wise.”. 
—Proverbs 26:5, to Mr. Erwood. I 
have answered him according to his folly. 
Now writhing in pain finding himself 
beaten at his own game, he cries for the 
sympathy of his readers. 

He speaks of me hiding behind my 
clerical garb and sanctimonious office, 
etc. Your readers, Mr. Editor, know 
very well who has tried to hide. Mr. 
Erwood tried to hide behind all that was 
foul and false, and now that I have made 
his name a watch-word of infamy among 
all honest and truth-loving men, he tries 
to hide behind the sympathy of your 
readers. 


168 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

I have no need to hide. I have met 
my opponent honestly and fairly. 

He met my arguments with misrepre¬ 
sentation and calumny, he tried to make 
Catholic authors teach doctrines which 
they repudiated, he endeavored to make 
his hungry creed respectable by trying to 
prove it the same thing as the Catholic 
doctrine of the communion of saints. 
He wilfully and maliciously denied the 
truth of my statements, and if after all 
this, he thinks I should maintain a mild 
tone towards him, he is much mistaken. 
I view him in the same light as the meek 
Saviour of mankind viewed the Pharisees 
when he called them “whited sepulchres,” 
“hypocrites,” “filthiness and dead men’s 
bones.” Judging him by his letters he is 
in the same class as the pharisees of old. 
Therefore, meeting my controversial bush¬ 
whacker with visor up, I shall not hesi¬ 
tate to deal blows direct and heavy and 
to indulge in such severity of comments 
as I think his errors at once so extreme 
and grotesque imperatively demand. 

The diviner rides in full panoply 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 169 

against my arguments anent his quota¬ 
tions from Father Gmeiner saying: 

“And in his attempt to get out of the 
matter he talks about ‘odds and ends of 
the quotations from Father Gmeiner’s 
Spirits of Darkness;' I can well imagine 
that these odds and ends cause him no 
little annoyance, for they present a 
phase of the discussion that he cannot 
get around.” 

You can imagine almost anything but 
the points at issue. Anyone who read 
your arguments and the quotations you 
put forward in support of them will 
readily see that it is in very truth your 
imagination that speaks. No sane man 
acquainted with the premises, could im¬ 
agine as you do that the quotations you 
gave from Father Gmeiner’s book had 
any bearing on the question. You say 
they had, but this is the pure creation 
of your own muddled and opaque brain. 
The great trouble with the medium is 
that he does not understand what he 
reads, and therefore he misapplies it. I 
am asked by Mr. Erwood, how do I 


170 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

know that departed spirits, very seldom, 
generally speaking, return to this earth. 

I know it on the testimony of the 
greatest theologians and philosophers, 
Protestants, Catholic and Jewish, that 
this world has ever heard of. 

I wish further to instruct the medium 
on the doctrine of the Catholic Church 
regarding the appearance of spirits. 

I first quote his words: 

“Reading the lives of the ‘Saints’ it 
would appear that such a return was not 
only daily, but an hourly occurrence.” 
Here then is the question: “if the return 
of the dead is admitted to be a fact; if 
it is conceded that the return of ‘good 
spirits’ is not confined to the Catholic 
Church, what right has Father Flanagan 
or any other prominent or obscure priest 
to assert that Spiritualism is in its 
entirety the work of demons of evil 
propensity?” 

I shall first consider the question: Can 
a disembodied soul communicate to a soul 
not yet freed by death from the body? 

The answer of the greatest theologians 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 171 

is in the negative. It is substantially 
this: Our mind or intellect, in the present 
state of union of soul and body, can be 
reached by a mere creature whether 
corporeal or spiritual only through the 
medium of the imagination, inasmuch as 
we are naturally led by those sensible 
images into the knowledge of truth. 
Now, the soul departed from the body 
has no power whatever over the phan¬ 
tasms of our imagination, because matter 
is not subject to its sway as regards 
local motion; and therefore a disem¬ 
bodied soul cannot by itself illuminate 
or instruct us in any way. 

But what of the apparitions of spirits? 
Treating of this same question, one of 
the greatest theologians of our times— 
Lepicier—answers: 

“These apparitions take place through 
the instrumentality of angels who are 
able to reproduce the likeness of any 
person living or dead and who can act 
and speak as such persons once did. 
And as angels can know the thoughts 
of the departed, they can in that way 


172 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

communicate them to the living, thus 
justifying their names and being envoys 
as it were or representatives, whose 
utterances may be taken as proceeding 
from the particular person whom they 
represent. 

“Now we have to make a distinction 
between the angels themselves. Some of 
them are good, others have fallen from 
their high estate. The former are God’s 
ministers and never act in the visible 
world except at His command; the bad 
angels, on the other hand, are bent on 
rebellion against God, and habitually 
claim for themselves the responsibility 
of their actions, although they also at 
times are bound to act as the ministers 
of God’s justice. Hence it follows that 
the visible effects which good angels 
cause in this world are always brought 
about by them through God’s agency, 
and therefore are all miracles; whereas 
the effects produced by bad angels are 
generally due to their own private action, 
in which case they are not miracles. 
The apparitions of the dead, then, are 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 173 

miracles when taking place through the 
ministry of good angels; they are no 
miracles when taking place through the 
action of bad angels, unless these be 
acting at God’s bidding.” 

But Mr. Erwood asks me why I 
assert that spiritistic manifestations are 
the works of the devil. 

We have seen that a departed soul 
cannot by itself illuminate or instruct us 
in any way. But we know that cautious 
scientists have made useful discoveries 
on this score and have received such 
instructions in the seance room. Since 
the display of mysterious force which 
operated in the seance room, during the 
researches of the eminent scientists can¬ 
not be attributed to the dead, angels 
must be held responsible for it. But to 
what class or order of angels are these 
effects to be ascribed? Not to the good 
angels since the canon of heaven is 
against such a course. Holy Scripture 
condemns the practice of Spiritism in 
the strongest possible terms. 

“Neither let there be found among 


174 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

you anyone that consulted soothsayers 
or observeth dreams and omens, neither 
let there be any wizard or charmer, nor 
anyone that consulteth pythonic spirits, 
or fortune-tellers, or that seeketh the truth 
from the dead ” —Deut. 18:10, 11. 

I said, therefore, viewing the matter 
from a Christian and scientific stand¬ 
point, it was logical to conclude that the 
devils or demons or fallen angels, were 
the authors of all such effects in modern 
Spiritism, that are not trickery and fraud, 
or cannot be attributed to human power. 

The Spiritists speak of the accounts of 
the appearance of spirits recorded in the 
lives of the saints. He says they are 
numerous. The same is true of the 
Bible. We read there in numerous 
passages of the appearances of spirits. 

But how different is all this from the 
mode of procedure in the seance room. 
Why is it necessary to make use of the 
mediums? Why the horns, trumpets, 
dark room, etc., etc.? 

If God sees fit to allow spirits to 
appear why the use of a medium? 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 175 

I know the Spiritists try to justify 
their course, and in their blindness, refer 
to the well-known Scriptural narrative 
of the consulting of the woman of Endor 
by King Saul. But this cannot be said 
to be owing to the witch’s magic, since 
Samuel appeared before she had time to 
begin her incantations. 

Moreover, the Bible in another place 
condemned Saul’s action. “So Saul died 
for his iniquities, because he transgressed 
the commandment of the Lord, which 
He had commanded and kept it not; 
and moreover, consulted also a witch, 
and trusted not in the Lord, therefore 
He slew him and transferred his kingdom 
to David, the King of Isai.”—Paralip. 
10:13-14. 

I concede all the great scientists teach 
concerning the Spiritistic phenomena, 
but I maintain the souls of the dead 
do not produce the phenomena referred 
to; and that the fallen angels, the devils, 
are the originators of the phenomena in 
question. It is they, who in response to 
the mediums, masquerade as the souls 


176 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

of the dead, and thus carry on, with 
devilish malace, their warfare against 
Heaven, with the object of bringing 
about the ruin of souls. 

The necromancer again speaks of 
Hudson Tuttle’s experience. He devotes 
seven paragraphs to this phase of his 
subject. He also speaks of D. Raupert, 
trots out again his patent medicine and 
consumes four more paragraphs. He 
proves nothing, there is neither sense or 
argument in his words, and the eleven 
paragraphs are nothing more or less 
than a monument of his incomparable 
foolishness. 

He finds fault with what I said about 
the scientists who have investigated the 
phenomena of Spiritism. He says: 

“Now we have Rev. Flanagan admit¬ 
ting that some of the greatest scientists 
believe in the spirit hypothesis. ‘I am 
well aware of the fact,’ he adds, ‘that 
men of great reputation as scientists, 
have given their testimony in favor of 
the reality of Spiritualistic phenomena. 
This is not the question, I never dis- 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 17 7 

puted this.’ Yet we have him recently 
asserting that the cautious scientists did 
not commit themselves to the point of 
belief in the identity of the communi¬ 
cating spirit. At present he concedes 
that some of the ‘ greatest ’ scientists 
believe our hypothesis/’ 

This is indeed a cruel nemesis. It 
reminds one of a big dunce in a class; 
room, at the blackboard doing a problem 
in addition. He adds up the figures 
written on the board, say 3-4-2-6 and 
writing down the result of the operation 
twenty, exclaims with a triumph in his 
voice, Twenty! while all the rest of the 
class very plainly see that the result is 
fifteen, not twenty. I ask the readers of 
the Echo to be the class for the nonce, 
while the Spiritistic acrobat and contor¬ 
tionist evolves his exegesis of the spirit 
hypothesis. 

All thru this discussion I professed my 
belief in the world of spirits. I likewise 
denied that the spirits claiming to be the 
souls of the dead were the intelligences 
they say they are. I said the greatest 


178 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

scientists believe in the reality, but they 
did not profess belief in the identity of 
the spirits manifesting. This is my 
position. Anyone can read the same 
in substance in my last letter. 

Here is a good sample of what the 
scientists have to say. W. F. Barrett, 
Professor of Experimental Physics, in the 
University of Ireland, declared: “What 
I am prepared to assert, from my own 
experience is that neither hallucination, 
imposture, mal-observation, misdescrip¬ 
tion nor any other well-organized cause 
can account for the phenomena I have 
witnessed, and that the simplest explana¬ 
tion is the spirit hypothesis.” 

The simplest explanation, says the 
professor and the scientists with him, 
is the spirit hypothesis, as opposed to 
hallucinations, imposture, etc. This is as 
far as he goes. Eminent scientists began 
their investigations, after excluding all 
possibility of fraud and trickery, and then 
admitted that the most reasonable expla¬ 
nation for the phenomena witnessed was 
that it was the work of spirits. 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 179 

They do not, however, say, as the 
medium tries to make them say, the 
authors of the wonders they beheld, were 
the souls of the dead. The scientists 
admit the reality of the phenomena they 
witnessed, but they do not assert that 
the intelligences are the souls of the 
dead; in fact they state that there does 
not exist evidence which would warrant 
that conclusion. 

But yet, the medium in his blindness 
jumps at the conclusion that because, 
the scientists believe in the spirit theory 
they also believe that the departed souls 
are the authors of the spiritistic wonders. 

Shakespeare, with prophetic vision, 
seems to have had in mind just such 
men as the Spiritistic pastor when he 
penned these lines: 

“But when we in our viciousness grow hard, 

The wise gods seal our eyes; 

In our own slime drop our clear judgment, make us 

Adore our errors; laugh at us while we strut 

To our confusion.” 

The remaining portion of Mr. Erwood’s 
letter is such a confused and illogical 
jumble, and is so at variance to the 


180 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

question under consideration, that it 
deserves very little notice. 

I do not think the readers of the 
Echo are very much interested in the 
conjuror’s early training. Yet he deems 
it important to mention the school and 
its director, etc., to which his parents 
sent him. But the fault was not with 
the school. Mr. Erwood ^attended, as 
I said in my last letter, but with the 
medium’s lack of brains. 

In speaking of the green gooseberry 
bush my opponent tried to be witty. 
But it did not become him for he had 
, nothing back of it to sustain him. 

He asks how I will sustain my theory 
that Spiritism is the work of the devil. 
This I answered above, when I replied 
to his question contained in the seventh 
paragraph of his letter. 

Anxious to make a point in favor of 
his false creed he tells of what Spiritism 
has done to destroy materialism. It is a 
very small thing that Spiritism destroys 
materialism in some men. This conces¬ 
sion is not made by the arch-enemy of 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 181 

mankind without adequate compensation 
and without his using it as a means of 
furthering his own ultimate ends. 

I have now finished my consideration 
of the Spiritist’s letter. I have spoken 
of everything in it of importance. I 
wish now, in a few words to refer to 
my task during this controversy. 

I was challenged to ask questions on 
Spiritism. I did so. My opponent did 
not answer successfully even one of my 
questions. I was not called upon to 
prove the reality of the Spiritistic phe¬ 
nomena or the identity of the spirits, or 
anything else. My task was to see that 
my questions were correctly answered. 
I have accomplished my work. Mr. 
Erwood failed miserably in his efforts. 

I cannot better conclude this discussion 
on Spiritism than in the words of a 
master mind who made a deep study of 
the subject. 

“He who diligently seeks for truth can 
find it both in the books of nature and 
revelation, and need not have recourse to 
deceitful and masquerading spirits. 


182 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 

“If we desire temporal and spiritual 
favors, an easy way is open to us, it is 
that of recourse to humble prayer in 
conformity to the law and will of the 
Almighty, the giver of all good. If we 
yearn for happiness, we have a pledge 
of coming bliss in the promise of the 
vision of God, face to face. But the 
fulfillment of this promise is made de¬ 
pendent on one condition: the practice 
of good works in the observance of the 
divine law. ‘Make me to understand 
the way of thy justifications, and I shall 
be exercised in thy wondrous works.’— 
Psalm 118:27.” 

I beg to add only a few words more 
before ending. In your issue of Monday, 
July 10, Mr. Editor, you referred to 
the present discussion on Spiritism in 
these words: 

“The Echo believes that its readers 
have had opportunity to form conclu¬ 
sions one way or another on the matter 
of Spiritism or Spiritualism from the 
series of articles published during the 
past several weeks, and further, local 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 183 

events are on the calendar in the near 
future that will doubtless require all our 
typesetting facilities, therefore, we deem 
it fair all around to close the series 
after Rev. Father Flanagan replies to 
the two articles by Rev. Erwood, which 
are now here and will be published as 
soon as they are put in type.” 

Now, Mr. Editor, since this is your 
determination in this matter, I take 
this opportunity to thank you for your 
generous and fair treatment during this 
controversy. 

I now take leave of my opponent. 
I am in doubt whether I should say 
“good-bye” or simply “an revoir .” I 
therefore address him in the words of 
the poet: “Fie thou dishonest Satan; I 
call thee by the most modest terms, for 
I am one of those gentle ones that will 
use the devil himself with courtesy.” 

I am deeply grateful to you, Mr. 
Editor, for your unbounded courtesy, 
and remain, 

Most gratefully yours, 

F. J. Flanagan. 

























HONOR ROLL 


R. B. Abbey 
Alice J. Austin 
Mrs. Ambler 
M. Austin 
J. W. Amos 
Mrs. C. Bushell 
Miss Lucina Blodgett 
Mrs. Scott G. Boyce 
J. S. Bigler 
Mrs. A. Blechner 

A. J. Bowen 
Mrs. Dillon Bliss 
Joseph Barrington 
Dr. T. Babcock 
Mrs. Alice E- Barker 
Mrs. G. C. Bacot 
Fanny Barbrick 
Mark* A. Barwise 
E. C. Clark 
Mrs. D. L. Church 
Flora L. Collins 
L. Crum 

D. C. Craft 
Mrs. A. E- Cope 
Grace E. Cole 

Mrs. Elizabeth Clark 
Mrs. H. Courtright 
A. Dunham 
Mrs. L. B. Dupre 

E. A. Doty 


Mary E. Davis 

B. L. Devine 
Mrs. J. E. Dillon 
Mrs. Belle Dudley 
Mrs. Eleanor Davies 
H. W. Edwards 

C. H. Edwards 
Abbey A. Ellis 
J. E- French 
Warren R. Faler 
Mrs. S. J. Fish 
S. C. Fenner 

A. J. H. Franke 

M. F. Gearhart 

W. E. Gillett 

Ed. Golden 

Elmo Gray 

Mrs. J. W. Grayson 

O. C. Gould 

Thomas Grimshaw 

R. J. Gebert 

Mrs. F. H. Grant 

Mrs. Pearl M. Grenger 

Florence Griggs 

Joseph Geibel 

F. Gienger 

Mrs. J. E. Hyde 

C. E. Hatch 

John L. Hoard 

Mrs. E. C. Havens 


186 Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 


John A. Hint 
Mrs. M. E- Havens 
Mrs. Marie Hoffert 

D. W. Henderson 
Minnie May Hodges 
Mrs. F. W. Hess 

E. J. Heinzeman 
J. Belle Hutchins 
Mrs. Addiline Ingals 
Irving Jackson 
Mrs. John F. Jones 
Geo. D. Johnson 
Eva Jordan 

W. C. Johnson 
Mrs. Jacob Kernan 
A. E. Kirkpatrick 
Lloyd Kelly 

Mrs. Chas. W. Kummeson 

Mrs. James F. King 

J. F. Kidder 

Mrs. M. D. Litchfield 

Mrs. Maytie Lane 

Sarah Lutz 

Mrs. P. Ludlin 

Miss Marie Lewis 

Moses Levy 

John H. Lamb 

Miss Louella Lodge 

A. J. Lindstrom 

Miss Anna L. Loekle 

Louise G. Lobel 

Mrs. Geo. Lauziere 

G. C. Lundquist 

Mrs. Amalie C. Leutwyler 

Thomas M. Locke 

Mrs. Zoller-Lees 


Z. A. Morris 

Mrs. Geo. McGrady 

Sarah A. McIntyre 

Frank Miller 

Miss Stella J. B. Matson 

Mrs. Geo. McDonald 

Mrs. M. Milligan 

Mrs. Myers 

M. P. Moore 

Ford C. Myers 

Mrs. James L. McMann 

Mrs. Magdalene Meissner 

John W. M err in 

L. M. McKenney 

Mrs. McAllister 

Millicent Nichols 

S. A. Nichols 

S. W. Otis 

Mrs. Amelia Phillips 

Miss Hazel Phillips 

Mrs. Henrietta Peterson 

E. Prieto 

Mrs. E. B. Price 

William Price 

Ira E. Pinkham 

Mrs. B. A. Pressing 

S. M. Packard 

A. Reynolds 

Lizzie M. Reynolds 

Sarah A. Russell 

D. H. Rogers 

A. G. Rich 

Mrs. Margaret Rhodes 
Mrs. J. B. Rhines 
Mrs. B. Spence 
Mrs. Sarah Schoamked 


T? J) 5 8 


1 


Spiritualism and the Catholic Church 187 


C. A. Sage 
Geo. A. Sucher 
Mrs. A. E. Smith 
A. C. Stone 
Miss G. Schwiegert 
John F. Steckenreiter 
Mrs. G. A. Smith 
Alice J. Stansfield 
Mrs. H. E. Shepardson 
Mrs. J. C. Spaeth 
Rev. Emma B. Smith 
Mrs. A. E. Stine 
Chas. R. Smith 
Mrs. Geo. St. Myers 
N. C. Stowe 
H. M. Stevens 
Justus Schmidt 
Mrs. Katie Springer 
Mrs. S. A. Stewart 
Mrs. E. D. Smith 
Mrs. M. E. Tuthill 


Chas J. Tucker, M. D. 
Mrs. E. C. Templeton 
Wm. G. Tirrell 
Laima A. Tibbits 
E. E- Vancurler 
Mrs. Elizabeth Witheral 
J. B. Whiting 
J. P. Weiler 
Miss Rose Whicker 
Mrs. Clara Watson 
Mrs. Eliza Wilkinson 
A. E. Wolf 
Harlow P. White 
Emory S. West 
Mrs. Eleanor M. Walker 
J. P. Whitwell 
Mrs. J. B. Walker 
L. L. Woodbury 
Mrs. S. A. Ziegler 
Mrs. Stella Zachman 































•A°* 


a ^ *< 77^ ■ < 

<*U> ,o* % • u V* ♦ ? o o«" 0 ♦ "<*>. 

* r* , G *W 28 &\ ° or kV*SSW* v c 

^ :4|Kh ^O 4 • 

o j0 V*. - * *4 « 

> k v -'VllWWs 1 ^ 7 VX * <ZZZvIfUF s A ** 

<** o 0 ; V o 

A •••“ O. .o* .•••* *> v N .‘M* c 

* rav* . V a* ;A?^ «► .* *v 

:ii # . W • 

_. __ ** ^ fclKilF * o 

> °;WV v > V^SJEr/ V, o 



< o 

3L> 



' ■ 

O ~ ^' , * > ^^ « 0 -*\ 

°+ **••* 4,°' <t> 





'sSPf* v>^ *W§‘ o>-* ;^£^o 

•AiS?,* <r \ '.w 1 .* ^ t? -, 1 & 

n.' . t ' « - *>» .& V o » « ^6 .^1 



° 

C* ‘—•' 

^ ,0^ t • 1 '** 'O 

> V A 0 *<*>srt?^ * O 

^o 4 


,5°^ 


<V 



&„ * 0 ^ * Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 

*p. u “ 1 Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 

4 Treatment Date: Nov. 2004 

^ ' 

*- ^o ^ PreservationTechnologieJ 

Q - A W0RLD leader in paper preservatioi 

k° ^ 111 Thomson Park Drive 

A ™i Cranberry Township. PA 16066 

0 ,0 ^ (724)779-2111 

A > ^ ^ 


• • 


V 


* 


O ft A 


°o 




X* .‘•j^*, ** 

t? • 

0 r 



** 0 < 







. . %> *...• *♦ <v 

• !,••- > V *VV1% cv 

; V* 

° v> ^ O T 

„<,_ .' 4- V & •'GW* 

k ' * % <(> O '• • * * A 

<£ o'' 4 • 1 * # 4 . *0 . & V 

*o 

' * ' ^ 

• .o V 




*Vrtw% V. A * ♦ 

^ V 



.* ♦* *« 

. •••* A <. *'TT.‘ ,o 

°o <*♦ .^; v \ c °* 



/’V^/ % 

.«••-*> V * L^L% 

Wr 





_ *y * 

^ ‘ ^. °o 

^ „« :f'M&' "o v* 


4 o. 
1/ ^ 






* “° * A?* V 
♦ «\ at .•••- O 

: ^ v 


♦ 

Q 

‘WM^- a v *^. - 

.fW. ->* -Jv . 

* DOBBS BROS. ^ a 

LIBRARY BINDING ' ft ft * <U 

APR 81J^!. ^ -o 




> 

O 

vJ 


ST. AUGUSTINE 
FLA. 



()i ^-s: 


32084 












































